FloggerActually the Kfir, at least according to airwar.ru got a max G of 7.5.
The only dogfight between Israeli Kfirs and Arabs MiGs ended with the shooting down of a Syrian MiG-21. It depends though what model that MiG was, because from the basic MiG-21 to the MiG-21bis it’s going fro, 7Gs to 8.5.
BTW maybe there were some other dogfights that involved Kfirs in some of the countries operating it but Israel that I don’t know of.
Sorry my mistake but do you know the G limits of the Kfir, because at least from the http://www.airwar.ru page the Kfir is portraited as a less agile fighter if we consider that the MiG-23MLD G limits are 8Gs or 8.5Gs so the Kfir should be in the loosers side also the Mirage II is portraited as less than 4 Gs.
FloggerFlogger is Japanese? He sounds like a carbon copy of the looney at CDF Strevitel, who said he was Jewish, then Brazilian, then Mexican and then something else π
From the FX thread, Flogger tried to hint he’s South American/Brazilian but was corrected by our Brazilian members on views concerning Embraer and the space program.
Oh, Strevitel crowds CDF with thousands of non-topic Flogger pictures.
Man is funny you try to find who i am instead of giving me a link if am strevitel, if i am not ,if i am Japanese, Brazilian, Jewish, Cuban, Mexican or what ever is not importat the most important is how to support our points and in that still am my self at least i have given you a link for the J-8/Ye-152 common origin i am supporting the J-8/Ye-152 with a link, comon features and known facts about the jets is part of historical research give links and find th true throughout an exhaustive reseach but i am a person who thinks documented history is like the Greek myth about Troy and the same thing is with the internet links since many are confusing and contradic each other the only thing sometimes left to do is take a stand and many take one and others other but the fact the Ye-152 and the J-8 can or can not be related very few links will solve that
FloggerPure BS. Your sources are either not quoting that statement and its clearly the article is just adding its own fantasy speculation.
Why would the Russians transfer it when already there were serious misgivings about the alliance? Even by Chinese accounts, the MiG-21 transfer was not complete.
The J-8 project began in the late sixties not in the early sixties, and was finished in the early eighties. If they had “help” why couldn’t they finish it sooner?
The Russian supplied MiG-21s in 1962 and the first J-7 made of Chinese made components flew in 1966, so they had already passed the licensed build rights of the MiG-15/17/19 and the Ye-152A was going to be the next MIG or MiG-23 something that never happened so why not pass the plans of the Ye-152 in early 1961 if the jet had already finished it`s flight program, also let`s remember that the MiG-21 was flown in 1957 so was as new as the Ye-152 so just by looking at the History of the Chinese-Russian technology transfer deals it is not difficult to imaging the Chinese asking for the Top Mig as they did for the Top Sukhoi, the Su-27 also the article mention references and the fact that many details of the Ye-152A were not transfered to the Chinese and only the Plans or Blue prints so it is logical it could happened.
FloggerHow? That’s pure BS. The SU and China were practically at cold war at that time.
not true the Ye-152 was flown in July 1959 and in 1961 the Russian and the Chinese were just making the MiG-21 technology transfer deal so it is not unlikely it could had happened and they just mentioned the plans, neither the radar, machinery needed to build the J-8 or engines were transfered however the engines were the R-11 so China got them with the MiG-21 deal, so the Chinese would have needed to finish the whole development by themselves.
FloggerNote, that there’s no source for that claim anywhere on the website.
i think it is very likely that is true because just looking at their dimesions and aerodynamic configuration because it says blueprints not the machinery needed to build it and there are some references at the bottom of the page so there are souces for the claim.
FloggerIt refers to the climb rate and accelration.
In terms of turning ability the following centence can be found:
——-
MiG-23MLD pilots are rigorously advised that prolonged turning engagements vs F-15A and F-16A, both offensive and defensive, should be avoided by all means.
——-
Maneuvers which would cause considerable loss of speed and therefore energy are permitted only if considered necessary for weapons employment or missile evading. As well, the manual strongly recommends the MiG-23MLD pilots to avoid any turning combat in the horizontal plane vs the Kfir C.2.
according to http://www.airwar.ru the Kfir C2 G limits were 7Gs contrary to the MiG-23MLD which has a 8.5Gs limits so i do not know if this is true but perhaps in some low speed parts of the flight envelope the Kfir was more manuevrable than the MiG-23MLD, do you know if any MiG-23 vs Kfir C2 engagement happened? and which fighter had the upper hand
Flogger.
What? The J-8I has a radar size as big or bigger than the MiG-21bis. You can’t judge a nose by how far it protrudes. You don’t really know what you’re saying. The J-8 was being studied to fire the PL-4 BVR AAM, but it was more the failure of early Chinese BVRAAMs for the reason why the plane isn’t using it. Yeah, and Fantans never amounted to over 300 to 400 as well. But the PLAAF maintains and even continues their production because of the reliability and popularity among pilots. The Fantan still performs right in the same region as other CAS jets.
The reason why the J-8I is built in limited numbers, and the J-7C/D even less was that the PLAAF pilots never had a good impression of their flight and handling qualities. There was a good reason why the J-6s were built in their numbers—they were quite popular, although it was difficult to master being sluggish at low speeds and prone to stalling. Once mastered however, it’s hard to beat in WVR combat. You don’t think the PLAAF would exercise their planes against each other do you?
—
It was until the J-7E came along that PLAAF was willing to let the J-6 legacy go.
The J-8I had a small radar and therefore a small shock inlet cone, the Ye-152 was going to fire AA-5 Ash and the K-4 and had a longer range radar because the Russian did not transfered the radar Urugan system to the Chinese so the Chinese need it to develope a radar based upon the MiG-21`s radar, but the Urugan radar system is by far a superior radar since it fired the long range AA-5 Ash of 40Km instead of the AA-2 Atoll of the Mig-21 nad the J-8 and there is a very unknown fact the Ye-152 A plans were transfered to China in order to built the J-8 and here is a link Ye-152 plans transfered to China to built the J-8
On the Picture the J-8`s SR-4 radar and an illustration of a Ye-152A
FloggerAide Memorie for the MiG-23 Pilot on Air Combat vs F-15A, F-16A, F-4E and Kfir C.2 – a Soviet Air Force document from the early 1980s refers to the MiG-23MLD(Export) version, powered by the R35-300 turbojet, rated at 28,700 lbs (127kN or 13,000kg) in full afterburner, without the aerodynamics and flight control system improvements of the VVS-FA MIG-23MLDs. According to the manual, the aircraftβs main parameters defining the energy maneuverability performance turn out the fighter slightly better than the McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II and definitely better than the IAI Kfir C.2. However, the MiG-23MLDβs air combat performance aspects, as given in the manual, are quoted as definitely inferior to those of the McDonnell Douglas F-15A and General Dynamics F-16A. There are only few areas within the MiG-23MLDβs envelope where it could boast equal or slightly better performance aspects when pitted against the third generation US fighters.
For example, the manual claims that compared than the F-4E (not specified whether the slated or non-slated sub-version of the Phantom is concerned), the MiG-23MLD has superior sustained turn performance throughout the entire envelope, excluding the range between 377 and 540kts (700 and 1,000km/h) bellow 21,000ft (7,000m) as well as an edge over the Phantom II in the zoom climb performance at all altitudes and speeds, excluding the true airspeed range between 485 and 647kts (900 and 1,200km/h) above 18,000ft (6,000m).
Pitted against the F-15A, the MiG-23MLD has the only notable advantage in the zoom climb performance at speeds above 620kts (1,150km/h) while pitted against the F-16A, the manual asserts the Soviet swing-wing fighter boasts somewhat better sustained turn performance above 15,000ft (5,000m) at speeds close to the maximum as well as better zoom climb performance at true airspeeds exceeding 590kts (1,100km/h).
I feel this is an excellent report very credible, one of the best i have read and truely the kind of things i like to know about the MiG-23 and this kind of things show the Flogger K was not as teerible as has been portraited π π π π
FloggerNope, there is nothing in the Jane’s article that actually “quoted” China Machinery Export and Import saying the FD-10 is 20-25km or even that the FD-60 is the PL-11. In fact, even the quote from the link you posted is confusing as to the author was talking about the LY-60 or the FD-60.
It was a mistake based on Jane’s own assumptions not the Chinese export press release.
This is why the FD-60 subject is brought up after Google gave us the correction on another Jane’s error that the SD-10 has an AGAT seekerhead which many Chinese including the manufacturer, Louyang, said was incorrect for two years.
The ludicrous aerial range of 20km for the FD-60 as an air-launched version of the LY-60 that already has a range of 18km when launched from the ground is obviously another mistake.
Golden Dragon π Jane`s article is clear as water, and they say according to China…..Corporation …….FD-60(PL-11)….25 km i feel you do not like simply the fact the missile is not a BVR weapon and you are simply trying to denied the undeniable but if you really want me to convince find another Chinese report from CCTV or Xinhua and i will believe you but for the moment Jane`s airticle has enough credibility.
FloggerThe F-16A was a nice little plane at the time. But I don’t like too much the monsters that were created from it later on.
An F-16I for example, no matter the equipment it got, is just too wick, especially in its wings, and can’t be a suitable replacement for a bomb truck like the F-4. I think it’s just a matter of time before we’ll start hearing about crack in the wings of the F-16I, that will have to carry as much weight as the Phantom and the F-15I.
But it seems though that the guys of the IDF/AF knew it and still agreed to buy the F-16I. Maybe they got some wing improvement that we don’t know of.
Today’s engines are nothing like the older generation engines. They are extremely reliable and therefore I don’t think that having a single engine is a bad thing for a fighter plane today, from reliabilty point of view. The F-16 got its bad name mostly in service of some airforces, where it crashes almost every month. But look at other airforces too. The Israeli air force lost nearly no F-16s, and almost none becasue of engine problems.
But it should be mentioned that the F-16 is one of the most beautiful fighter planes in the world today. In conclusion, even though all of the above the F-16 is still a very good multi role fighter plane. And you can’t disagree with its success.
The F-16 should have been born as top model, not a war plane.
I like the F-16 is a great looking airplane and a good air superiority and the Israely of Greek F-15s quit capable but the problem with it is it has not been market with thrust vectoring despite it has been fitted with Thrust vectoring nozzles neither has canards despited also has tested them it is simply that the F-22 and F-35 are simply leaving it behind but if it were maketed with thrust vectoring and the Israeli dorsal fairing armed with Python V, Dervy it would be a Su-35, Su-30MKI ass kicker
Floggerseveral questions:
1-what were the differences between the ML and MLA?
2- The swing wing of MLD how positions have? what angle? The 33 is substitute or toghever with teh 45deg. angle?
3-there is someone that know the tecnical caracteristics of the engines of the floggers? Wheig,trhust or so? I cannot find anything on the web.
It only had the 33 deg position
On the picture a Syrian MiG-23ML after it defected from Syria and landed in Israel
FloggerDid you see the J-7 production figures? Less than a thousand were built. Of those, 250+ were J-7Es where were mostly built in the nineties. That’s about only roughly 700 J-7s that were built from the late sixties to the late eighties. That is in contrast to a few thousand J-6s the Chinese built in the same time period.
Master the technology? The Chinese mastered the J-7/MiG-21 technology since the late sixties (how much more is the MiG-21 more advanced than the MiG-19 huh?) , but never never made the J-7 its top fighter in numbers. This despite that it was most probably easier and cheaper to build and maintain J-7s due to the single engine design. Figure it out—the Chinese never felt that the J-7/MiG-21 was any better than the J-6/MiG-19 and never made the Fishbed succeed the Farmer.
Consider the kill/loss ratio of the MiGs in the Vietnam War.
MiG-17: 32/100
MiG-19: 8/10
MiG-21: 36/86
I feel you are again leting your preference for the J-6 over the J-7 blind you, the MiG-21/J-7 were and are superior jets to the MiG-19/J-6 simply because it is faster, the radar available to the MiG-21 are better and the weapons were more advanced and still are ahead of teh J-6 simply the MiG-21-93 Bison is the Top Mig-21 and few nations are upgrading their Mig-21 to that standard or simply have kept the Mig-21 flying whlie the MiG-19 has been retired examples Poland, India, Rumania etc etc….The Chinese never wer satisfied with the J-7 simply becasue the MiG-21 is a more complex machine and they could not master it`s technology very easily and the same applies to their J-8 that very few were built
To illustrate how difficult the MiG-21 and J-8 were to master to the Chinese, the J-8 was built in so limited numbers as the Ye-152 due to their large size and if we see the picture we can see that even the J-8 SR-4 radar was so small and short ranged compared to the bigger Ye-152 ARK-541 radar which could fire the BVR AAMs AA-5 Ash and the K-4 compared to the simplier PL-2, and this was a MiG-21 derivative but check how many Q-5 Fantan were built and you will see that the Mig-21/J-7 and the J-8 are quit more complex but albeit more capable jets
FloggerHuitong, the developer of Chinese Military Aviation already responded in this thread:
well, I did quote that story from Jane’s, not the other way around!
Jane’s is still the source of evil ….So you shouldn’t use Chinese Miltary Aviation as supporting your argument any more.
And as Huitong said, Jane’s is the source of all evil in this debate, just like the AGAT seekerhead BS.
Jane’s never “quoted” China National Machinery Import & Export, I already pointed this out.
“The weapon is described as an air-launched version of the LY-60 surface-to-air missile. It uses semi-active radar homing and has a range of 20-25km.”
Not only is there confusion as to whether Janes is talking about the LY-60 or FD-60, there is nothing to tell me that it was quoted from a Chinese official.
This is the same misunderstanding and bad assumption we saw in the AGAT seekerhead case.
And all logic rule against 20-25km range if the FD-60 is an airlaunched version of LY-60 since the LY-60 has at least a 18km range from being fired from the ground.
π Golden Dragon i understand from the Jane`s article very well they are talking about the PL-11 and that they quoted China National Machinery Import % Export Corporation that said that the PL-11 has a range of 20-25km.
The fact you do not want to give credit to the report is okay with me, i am sure in few months or years the chinese will release another statement confirming Jane`s or simply refuting Jane`s report.
we can argue a lot and give several links and that will be fruitless since to me Jane`s is telling the true but for you you do not want to give credit for x or y reasons but i am sure time will tell but for the Moment i feel Jane`s report is the most accurate and i feel many people who has read the report wil share my opinion but we need another report perhaps from CCTV or Xinhua that confirm or discredit it in the future but for the moment Jane`s credibility stands at least for me. Since they very clearly quoted the China National Machinery Import % Export Corporation.
FloggerAgain misuderstanding and one of the unclearpoints in the MiG-23 story.
There were actually a small number of ML variants (23-12) produced before production switched to the 23-12A with improved equipment. The Lasour gear/datalink used with the Vozdukh ground-based remote guidance system was presented on all MiG-23Ms/ML/MLAs, while the P version had diffrent equipment, diffentr radar (NOO6 with improved look-down capability but noair combat mode), PVO specific gear, and had a fully remotegudance mode, by ground comands through the autopilot, without pilot’s involvement, except for thurst control.
So, the mass VVS fighter after M and before MLD was the MLA, not the ML. For example, in the late 1970s, the Altes Leger-based VVS regiment in East Germany was equiped with one ML and one MLA squadrons.
The chief cockpit difference, I suppose, was the presense on the MLA of the ASP-17 sight replacing the ASP-23M.
I Airsand plus π you are right about the fact that the MiG-23MLA was a different version but was solely because it was fitted with another radar, the Saphire MLA but besides that was a MiG-23ML. also according to a Russain Book named OKB Mikoyana by Polygon printed in 2000, the MiG-23ML was the first version of the lighter and more advanced late Floggers,it was Flown in 1974 and basicly it is the root of the MiG-23MLA, MiG-23MLD and MiG-23P and only after 3 years later the MiG-23P was flown in 1οΌοΌοΌand the MiG-23MLA was Flown much later some sources say 1977 but in this book it is implied that it fisrt flew around 1978.
The Family tree would be like this MiG-23ML 1974, MiG-23P 1977, MiG-23MLA 1977, MiG-23MLD 1984
do you know the MiG-23MLD in Bulgarian service what prototype designation they have? because the MiG-23MLD able to fire AA-11 Archer was the MiG-23MLDG and it`s prototype form designation was MiG-23-57 and that makes me feel that the Bulgarian MiG-23 infact are downgraded MiG-23MLDs
Floggerseveral questions:
1-what were the differences between the ML and MLA?
2- The swing wing of MLD how positions have? what angle? The 33 is substitute or toghever with teh 45deg. angle?
3-there is someone that know the tecnical caracteristics of the engines of the floggers? Wheig,trhust or so? I cannot find anything on the web.
Up to what i know now, the MiG-23MLA is the same to the MiG-23P but sometimes it is little confusing but the MiG-23P was a great jet for one reason it could be steered by the mighty MiG-31 or the Ground Control Interception (GCI) network and was a basicly a MiG-23ML, although it had a different radar the Saphire MLA, another flight control system the SAU-23PM and an automatic secure data link system named Vozdukh that enslaved tha radar to the GCI network or a director plane such as the MiG-31 that automatically steered the MiG-23P to the target, and indicated when to fire and what weapon to use by just following the signal provided by the Automated Command Guidance System.
Sign In
