FloggerThe Russians are not an expert on the J-8, and opinions and speculations do not count against documented history. That does not make your link equal to the links I have given. The opinion you gave has totally no weight, and no validation at all.
Crobato if the Russians would not help China no J-4, J-5, J-6, J-7, J-8, J-10 and J-11 even the Pakistani-Chinese FC-1 would be flying today because the Russian have been friends of China because if it were by the US China would be Flying kites and the only missiles the Chinese would be Flying were those on the fire works You like it or not the Russian taught almost all what the Chinese know about aircraft up to know something that there is not reason to be ashame the Chinese are good engineeres and great students and a great nation in terms of aerospace capabilities but please do not say the Russians do not Know anything about China`s aerospace programs becasue they know a lot
FloggerNone of the mods were ever enacted in service—whch means no guarantee that it will work. Neither does it prove that Saphire 23 has multiple targeting capability. In fact, they tend to prove otherwise. The Apaulette is more than just an assistant, any multiple target track while scan ability and modes to use R-77 would have to be in that pod. Like I said before, you’re trying to use the apaulet as proof that the Saphir 23 has multiple targeting. Basically I think you’re abusing links to come to prove technically and logically improvable conclusions. You don’t impress people by doing that.
Crobato, the Russian said R-77/R-27 able to be used by an upgraded Saphire-23 by just a modification of the radio correction Channel.
Apaulette is an assistant to help the main radar. Moskit 21K the same but still your Saphire will be onborad assisted by the MiniPhased array radar the question was if the Russian the MASTERS OF THE PHASED ARRAY RADARS , could fit MiG-23MLD `s Saphire with the ability to fire AA-10 Alamo and AA-12 Adder and have multitarget engagement capabilities because there were some Bulgarian reports of multitarget engegement capabiliy in Russian MiG-23MLD, technically is not a problem, true and a Fact they can do it, you lost the threat of what we are talking historical well that is another thing but technicaly speaking they can do it even they used that capability to fire the AA-12 from a MiG-23 in 1986 so i am not lying the Russian could let the Saphire on board the MiG-23MLD and endow it with multitarget engagement capability, fit AA-10 Alamos and AA-12 Adder now the Question is if they really deployed some because according to the Bulgarian reports the Russian had MiG-23, at least some, with that capability, honestly is very blur if they did it
FloggerGuys,
This debate is getting a bit crazy don’t you think? It’s really quite simple. The J-8II is NOT a copy of the MiG-23 aside from the fact that they used the same air intakes and the same ventral fins.The J-8I is NOT a copy of the Ye-152, but it probably had a part of its design at least influenced from the Ye-152. That doesn’t mean it’s a copy though.
If anything, the J-8I is simply a Chinese idea to make the MiG-21 larger with two engines….the same as the Russian idea that led to the Ye-152.
I am honest to say that as some reports like the AFM magazine given by Hydra and the J-8 link that Crobato gave i can agree that perhaps the J-8 was not based in the Ye-152 according to these reports, the link i gave it says the opposite a -Russian one- that the Ye-152 was the base for the J-8
I agree without further links for the moment that the most likely it was not based, it could have been based if the blueprints were transfered and still there is a posibility it was slim perhaps but it is likely too that this also had happened ,let`s say it is unclear if it really happened as the Russian link claimed.
About the J-8II it happened to think that J-8II was the product of J-8 modified thanks to the MiG-23MS inputsfrom the Flogger given by Egypt to China in 1978, let`s say that for the moment for me it is almost a fact they reversed engineered the inlets, the Ventral fins and used the MiG-23MS Gsh-23ML twin barrel cannon let`s say for the moment it is blur the part that the MiG-23 played in the J-8II program
FloggerYou really an idiot to even miss thinking why the Moskit 23 is being proposed as the “first” modernization in the first place. Because it is the most possible to do and the one that is most concievable.
The second proposal adds considerable drag because it requires a pod. The pod in effect becames the plane’s supplementary radar. It is there because it ADDS functions to which the primary radar LACKS.
The third proposal is even funnier. An RF channel alone can get you R-77, R-27 and R-73 capability? Not without some serious component additions to the radar, which includes a computer and associative software to ADD air to air modes that the original radar LACKS.
any way i proved to you the fact that the MiG-23 with appaulete or Moskit or the modification to the correction channel make the Saphire able to fire AA-10, AA-12 and have multitarget engagement capability did you read the appaulete link i gave you and adjuntant mini phased array radar can allow to keep your old Saphire-23 yes or not?is an assistant to the old Saphire-23 yes or not?here is again the appauleteappaulete radar for MiG-23 link
FloggerWrong. You read English or what?
And if you read the whole page, the RADAR WAS REPLACED.
Even if you use the pod, the pod REPLACES the radar functionality because it is the one doing the work.
By some twisted logic are you trying to prove that the Saphir 23 has multiple targeting capability because you can use the Apaulet pod?
Wrong. The pod takes over the radar functions.
If you read the page carefully, the multitargeting function came from the Moskit-23.
What I can see from you is all sorts of wishful thinking, and to support your wishful thinking you go to extreme lengths twisting and misinterpreting the data and information of the links you provide.
BULLCRAP.
You provided me a link WITHOUT THE FOOTNOTES that showed where the speculation came from. Very likely it would not come from those sources you mentioned. I will not give you any credit—you don’t deserve any.
I gave you a Chinese source that says otherwise, with much more detail about the origins of the J-8.
You are really funny what are the second and third version of modernization? read the whole page there are three versions of modernization. and in two the Saphire remains only in the first version they replaced the radar please read it again i give you another link for the MiG-23 apuallete radar and the Moskit 21 in fact is another kind of appaullete why do you think the Saphire remaisn in the Flogger?appaulete radar for MiG-23
FloggerWrong. You showed me a link to the MiG-23-98, which so far never existed as far as I know beyond the planning stage.
That is not the MLD. The modification in the -23-98 requires a replacement of the Saphir 23 with the Moskit 23 radar. That’s not a simple modification, that’s a replacement.
The author was making an unproven conjecture and speculation. The Chinese did not even know there was a thing called a Ye-152.
You never gave me a satisfactory explanation why give them the blue prints in the first place. You don’t even know that when the J-8 and J-9 projects started, both were heavily intertwined together.
Here is some Chinese text that was babelfished.
“Because the Mig designing bureau has developed the E-152 series large-scale single shot fighter aircraft in the Mig -21 foundation, the west always guesses the F-8 design source from E-152, but two actually and the not big common ground, the starting point is also different. The plan selects two 涡to spurt -7 armor (WP-7B) the engine, single maximum thrust 43.15000 cows, single thrust augmentation thrust force 58.8000 cows. Here also must refer to 涡the fan -6. In December, 1960 center the Yang military commission decided sets up the aeronautical research institute, in August, 1961 set up the aircraft engine design research institute in Shenyang. Well-known engine expert Wu Daguan is appointed technical vice- manager, awards technical colonel the military rank. This -21 “traced thoroughly to the Mig, imitates independently designs” played the vital role, traced thoroughly to the Mig -21 engine, formed has been mature 涡spurts -7 series. At that time the national industry foundation was weak, the aviation industry development received the great nation containment and the blockade, walked road of the digestion introduction, was the unwise action. Concrete saying “the digestion introduction”, is in fact first step first does the F-8, decision-making process like preceding text states; Second step does annihilates -9, namely upper air high speed all-weather fighter plane, on necessary afterburning turbofan engine project, serial number 涡fan -6. F-8 success service, but annihilated -9afterwards discontinues”
The J-8I was based from the J-7 technologies simple as that. They did the simplest and most obvious way to make a high speed interceptor from MiG-21 parts and that is to put two engines into one airframe.
Did you read the whole link? the Saphire can remain in order to fire the R-77 please read the link
Also you are right is the MiG-23-98 and i just gave you the link to show you how easy the Russian can make a MiG-23 to fire AA-12 and AA-10.
I am not arguing if the MiG-23 was ever fielded with that capability operationally but show you that despite you did not read the whole page the MiG-23 with an appaulette podded radar, Moskit 21K podded radar or with small modification to the correction channnel and the R-77 processor can be adapted to fire AA-10 and AA-12 and the rest about the MiG-23MLD fielded with such capability is something i know perhaps the Russian never were able to deployed operationally despite the R-77 was fire from MiG-23s in 1986 and that makes the rumor of the MiG-23MLD able to fire ripple firings a plausible thing even if it has been reported in some links as a fact, technically is not impossible but Historically is still is an enigma if some were deployed albeit in small numbers .
Also i think instead of keeping arguing the same i will look for more information about the Ye-152 plans leaked to China, i feel good links will either prove me right or will prove me wrong so until i have more links i think Crobato you are entitle to give credit to the sources you deem correct since i do not want to annoy you and for the moment for me is sufficient that link that shows a Ye-152 ancestry in the J-8Ii lineage.
FloggerHow did Mig-23 do in AA combat vs Israeli F-4s and South African Mirage F1s in the hands of Angolans and Cubans?
Did well the MiG-23MS shot down several F-4E but also was shoot down, in Iraki service against Iran also did well.
But the MiG-23ML against the Mirage F1 really surpassed it in fact it is thought it changed the course of the war in favor to the Cubans
Close to 10 F-4Es i have read were at least shot down by MiG-23MF/MS/ML/MLD against a similar number of losses
FloggerThat’s the point, he doesn’t give a link for this specific claim that he is making. All he gives are some general links which is already a sign of poor writing.
Here’s what; you email him and ask him for the SPECIFIC link for that claim. Then come back here, and paste that text and source material here, then we discuss it further.
Have you read the books he mentioned to say he did not give any source because he mentioned them as where he got that information also i agree it is senseless to argue this by simply saying no good link i will look for more information but please also you should look for more sources.
FloggerRead my earlier post; if this were a serious work, he would have placed a footnote at the end of the sentence. Since this Ye-152 isn’t mentioned anywhere in JAWA and this web site most likely seems amateurish, it’s not unreasonable to discount it.
now it ios question where it is posted please give me a several links in russian or Chinese and we can agree or disagree i feel this is simply a really matter of saying the link is not serious it is not the way to prove something, a point or or an argument give me links and let`s make a nice historiagraphical work
FloggerActually, usually when you write a paper, you insert a footnote as a reference at the end of sentence. That particular sentence stating the purported Ye-152 J-8II link had no footnote or reference attached to it; hence it can be deduced that it is just the author’s speculation.
it has several books and CD Roms as bibliography and source of information that detail you mention is deducing that he did note gave us the page and in that you are right but he give us the Books and CD roms he read and in which he based his work
FloggerAnd you think LINKS can replace LOGIC and COMMON SENSE?
Everyone was already making a huge fool out of you. Links are not infallible. Links can often be wrong. Don’t use links to cover your technical inadequecies and lack of knowledge.
Why don’t you explain to me how a MiG-23MLD can have multiple target engagement capability with SARH missiles that can only lock and guide in STT single target tracking mode.
I’m waiting…
The Apaullete wasn’t deployed, and the AA-10 Alamo only works in the STT mode.
You gave me links to speculative BS. And most trust figures on the R-25 are not 7600kgs either.
You cannot explain to me the lack of correlation between the time periods between the YE-152 and J-8I development. You cannot give me MOTIVE for why the Russians would share YE-152 plans to the Chinese. You cannot give me EXPLANATION why the Russians would share a top secret experimental project to a country they are highly suspicious off. And for what? What did the Russians gain from that?
The Russians might as well hand over plans of the Backfire bomber to the Chinese if they’re that generous.
They did reverse engineer the MiG-23’s splitter and the folding ventral fin—things that are relatively trivial, and then you go hog around saying the J-8II is a MIG-23 copy for that?
Have you figured out that the Chinese was interested in the R-27/R-29 engine and the variable wing technology? The Chinese ultimately failed in trying to reverse engineer the engine, and concluded that VG wing proved to be too complex. They were correct in that decision. They went to a fixed wing on the JH-7 and chose to pursue FBW technologies instead.
Have you figured out that China may have paid good money to acquire MiG-21 license? The Russians hardly treated the Chinese with free things you know—Stalin gave Mao a big bill for all the “aid” the Russians sent to the People’s Volunteer Army in Korea.
Have you figured out that at least the MiG-21 was a finished aircraft?
No. You gave links to cover up you blistering lack of logic and common sense and none of those links are able to compensate for that either.
The MiG-23MLD can do it with an appaulette or moskit 21K radar MiG-23 update to MiG-23-98 and it allows to keep the old Saphire 23 and a simple modifacation to the radio correction Chnnnel and the processor of the R-77 can allow it to fire the R-77 in fact that is the Cheapest MiG-23-98 update just USD$300,000 the appaullet was not deployed but the simple modification i am talking was the one the Russian used to fire the R-77/AA-12 Adder from a MiG-23 in 1986 and that one also allowed them to use the R-27T/AA-12 Alamo.
Thank you you have acknowledged the fact that the MiG-23 played a role in the J-8II development and as i said before the reason they used the R-11-300 limited the Chinese to keep it as close to the original J-8 and their lack of experience obliged them to stay away of a complex mechanism as the VG is.
The Ye-152A finished it flight test program in August 1961 and only continued it`s flight test as a technology demostrator for the Ye-152 single engine version until crashing in 1966 so it was ready in terms of flight test but i never said that the Ye-152 whole program was transfered to China neither the author he only said the blueprints or plans so the chinese needed to do the whole work by them selves but the MiG-21 helped them you implied that the Russian gave the Machinery and tools needed to build the Ye-152 in China but they just gave them the blueprints and documents related.
The Ye-152 as the MiG-15/17/19 could help the Chinese since by that time Mikoyan gave up the idea of the Ye-152 in favor of the future more compact direct lift/VG wing MiG-23 program so it was not going to be the future operational MiG as today they trust the LFI will not be affected by the J-11 deal
Infact i will say that plans and blueprints do not make a nation to build an aircraft for that you need the tooling and machinery and you are right the Russian started to get suspicious of the Chinese so they did not give them the Radar technology and Engines and an irony at the end they gave them the R-11-300 via the MiG-21.
FloggerJanes is quoting the Chinese corporation quoting the SAM version of the FD-60. I’ve seen similar miquotes in the past.
Missile = SAM version slant range/AAM version head on range
PL-9C = 5km/15km (Israel quotes Python 3 at 15km)
PL-10/LY-60 = 18km/60km
PL-11/FD-60 = 25km/75kmNote: SAM slant version ranges are roughly 1/3rd of AAM head on range.
Predictions for the SD-10 SAM version
SD-10 = XXX/70kmXXX = most probably around 20-22km.
but sorry in the link i gave they said the -Air launched version has a range of 25km- please if you do not believe me read the report, if you can give me a Jane`s page to read the information you said i can agree the PL-11 has a range of 75km but in that report they said the air launched version not the SAM if not it would say the SAM version has a range of 25km
FloggerSorry. but you have not given an adequete and a satisfactory reason why the Russians would try to share blueprints of their top secret fighter to the Chinese even when already there was sufficient friction between the two countries. You really have no idea about the political background during that time.
Are they giving it for free? Are they giving it to the Chinese so that one day, the same plane can be used against them?
Your logic is a complete fallacy. Just because the LCA and the Gripen use GE F404 engines does not make it share a heritage with the Hornet.
As a matter of fact, the Ye-152 was cancelled long before the first J-8I took flight.
You really need to cut down all your ridiculous inferences like suggesting the J-8II is a copy of the MiG-23 just because of the intake splitters, or your continued and foolish inferences like you saying in the CDF saying the MiG-23MLD has multiple targeting capability when all it can carry was SARH beam rider missiles.
Okay i need to say i gave links that said that, and if you want i can give again the links but like i said before that fact you say that my links are false or wrong is simply like if i say your links are wrong, if we want to know the true it will take a lot of effort and the vast majority of people take sides specially if we are giving links or quoting people, i can give you links that said that the MiG-23MLD had multitarget engagement capability i even can give you links that say the saphire can be transformed into a multitarget engagement capability radar by just modifying it of by aiding it with a mini phased array radar name appaulette or use the Moskit 23 in the same manner as tha appaullete or prove you with a picture that the MiG-23-98 has the AA-10 Alamo in it`s arsenal , books that said the MiG-23MLD used the AA-10 Alamo, i already gave you a link for the Ye-152/J-8 common origin even i gave you links for the Su-15 weight and i can give you links for the R-25 thrust of 7,600kgs and what can you say is either accepted or refute them with other links, honestly i consider that the fact you say my links are wrong is subjective, i am always ready to consider other possibilities and i will give an example there are many links that give a weight for the SU-15 of 12,220 kg empty weight and others give a max of 10,220 or you can take sides saying the J-8II has no influence of the MiG-23, they did not reversed engineered the inlet or the ventral fin, okay you will base your opinions either in links or in personal beliefs like any body does, but explain me the reason why the Chinese would buy MiG-23s in 1978 just for the fun of making J-9s drawings or just for see how it is constructed? logic dictate that they would apply that technology in their own projects and in this case the J-8II as the AIM-54 given by Iran to the Soviet Union help Russia in the MiG-31 program explain me why Russia gave the MiG-21 to China if it was also a Top fighter in 1962?
I gave you links that support my theories you can give also yours but honestly few reports about the MiG-23 or J-8II will be 100% exactly perfect and in the Internet there are many contradictory links.
At the most you can say is this your links are wrong but that won`t solve nothing neither prove me wrong or right indeed few reports are reliable enough in the internet and mostly only the ones of the Aircraft makers press releases.
Floggerflogger, i dont know you, but your credibility is not being helped by you recent string of replies.
i have read the jane’s report and no way can anyone with even adequit knowledge of the english language describe its meaning as ‘clear as water’ (it also doesnt help to have two apparent versons of the same report). aside from the already raised issue of what janes meant by ‘it’ (FD60 or LY60), there is also the issue of just what China National Machinery Import & Export actually said to janes. did they just confirm the development history of the missile or did they also give the range figures? when faced with such a problem, people usually try to find alternative sources of information to try to prove or disprove one argument or another.
while everyone else has been doing that, you seem totally content to just sit on this unclear report and claim that it is fact even when you yourself acknowledge the possibilty that it could be wrong. instead you insist on getting conformation or denial from a source, while unquestionable in its credability, has never in its history made any such comments of such detail about weapons systems. to me, that is not the actions of an objective observer trying to find the truth.
just in case i am wrong and you are interested in the truth (which i now doubt), lets have a look at the other sources of information available, shall we?
1) almsot all sources agree that the PL11 is based on Aspide/AIM7 tech, so it would be logical to assume that the range of the former is at least compareable to the later.
2) china has also developed a BVR AAM of similar dimentions (SD10), so it would be logical to assume that the range of the PL11 should be compareable to that.
3) we know the range of the SAM verson missile (LY60) on which the FD60 (and where did anyone say the FD60 is the PL11?) is based (18km), we also know the converson critera of missile ranges from surface launched to air launched via the sparrow and sea sparrow, so we should be able to deduce a fairly accurate range for the FD60 based on that.
none of the above would even suggest that the PL11’s range is anywhere near as low as janes gave for it, and i cant think of any logical theories as to why the missile’s range would be that low, and unless you can, i would really have to question whether you yourself truthly believe the PL11 only has a range of 25km.
PLAWolf i agreed with you in one fact there are more links and many figures for the PL-11 range, i said simply Jane`s said according to China……cooporation means they are quoting China…Cooporation, i agree with the fact, also you said -deduce that is the range- they said -according to China…Coorporation- i will say only that you can believe it or not i decided that unless i read a Chinese official report it will be very difficult to prove wrong or at least to find the Chinese report in which the Jane`s report is based we can argue for years without really finding what the Chinese really said if you could find the Chinese brochure that Jane`s report is based upon we will get to an agreement.
FloggerThe link you provided is speculation, there are no sources for that speculation.
you are wrong , the bottompage references are sources but the kind of source you want is quoting a person and in that yes there are not sources of that kind but references imply that the author read those books or CD roms and he could or could not quote an author but he supports his work on those references.
internet links are in many times contradictory and you need to takes sides i took his side you take the others side but find who is right is only possible looking for many reports and fact and i can say the J-8 indeed uses the R-11-300 also used in the Ye-152 i give credit to the possibility that the J-8 could have a common origin with the Ye-152 since that is a Russian link. 🙂
Sign In
