FloggerThere is nothing in that article that tells me that descriptive sentence that is actually quoted from a Chinese official and not something that Jane’s had put in to describe the LY-60 to its readership.
What’s more, according to other Janes stories, the SD-10 is supposedly “mated” to a superior Chinese motor for longer range.
Now, if a ground radar can direct the LY-60 SAM to 18kms and China has motors with extended ranges like that of the SD-10, then the airborne version of the LY-60 should have far, far longer range. Since the range is neither limited by motor nor radar.
Both radar acquisition and missile flight envelope are greatly enhanced in the air. These are simple common truths for any practical analysis of missiles and radars.
The air launch version WILL also have much greater range and aquisition because you don’t worry about surface curvature or boosting missiles to altitude.
This is the SD-10 AGAT mistake all over again. Except in this case, the numbers are so glaringly wrong under practical calculations that it’s idiotic.
Golden dragon 😀 🙂 I know that there are many webpages about the PL-11 and for the PL-11 many ranges quoted, Jane`s report webpage clearly says that the PL-11 has 25km range but there are more webpages i have found, some claim that the PL-11 has a range of 55km, 75km, 100km, 130km i know that is difficult to know the exact range of that weapon, i feel for the moment you either can believe the 25km range quoted at Jane`s and Chinese Military Aviation or believe China Defense Today or other webpages that claim a range of 55 or more kilometeres. but i feel the Jane`s quotation of the China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation is the most authorized at the moment.
FloggerWhat you never heard of MiG-19/J-6 over Vietnam?
Here buy yourself a book.
http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?pid=1841761621&ad=YHSBKS
Here is some more
http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usloss.html
here is a list of US casualties in May of 1972
08-May-72 F-4 MiG-19 N. Vietnam Nguyen Ngoc Tiep Toperczer Not confirmed
08-May-72 F-4 MiG-19 N. Vietnam Nguyen Hong Son Toperczer Not confirmed
10-May-72 F-4D Harris/Wilkinson USAF MiG-19 Cannon N. Vietnam Pham Hung Son Ethell/Price
10-May-72 F-4D Lodge/Locher USAF MiG-19 Cannon N. Vietnam Nguyen Manh Tung Ethell/Price
10-May-72 F-4E USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Dang Ngoc Ngu Toperczer Not confirmed
10-May-72 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
10-May-72 F-4J Blackburn/Rudloff USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Le Thanh Dao Toperczer Attributed to AAA
10-May-72 F-4J Cunningham/Driscoll USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Vu Duc Hop Toperczer Attributed to SAM
11-May-72 F-105G Talley/Padgett USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Ngo Duy Thu Michel
11-May-72 F-4D Kittinger/Reich USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Ngo Van Phu Michel
18-May-72 F-4D Ratzel/Bednarek USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 923 Regiment Toperczer
18-May-72 F-4 MiG-19 N. Vietnam 925 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
18-May-72 F-4 MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Hong Nhi Toperczer Not confirmed
20-May-72 F-4D Markle/Williams USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Do Van Linh Michel Attributed to stall/spin
23-May-72 A-7 Barnett USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Duc Soat O’Connor Attributed to SAM
23-May-72 F-4D Byrns/Bean USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Attributed to AAA
23-May-72 F-4 MiG-19 N. Vietnam Pham Hong Son Toperczer Not confirmed
23-May-72 F-4 MiG-19 N. Vietnam Nguyen Hong Son Toperczer Not confirmedNote that some of the MiG-19 achieved kills were gun kills too.
And you’re also wrong about J-7 time table. Chinese got the information and a few MiG-21Fs before 1962, but due to gaps in the information (MiG claims they gave all the info but the Chinese claim otherwise) they were only able to master J-7 production starting 1966 with limited production beginning in 1967.
China was already more than capable of manufacturing J-7 by the seventies. So I don’t know what the hell are you talking about.
Pakistan kept their J-6s until March of 2002. But they have had J-7s for a long long time before that. In fact, Pakistan started getting their F-7s in 1988. So the PAF did not keep their better “J-6”? They kept the planes for fourteen years after the first J-7s.
I would say that the J-6 is not a really good fighter nowadays but in the 1960s was a good jet but i feel you are exagerating the real value of the J-6 it was a good dogfighter stressed for 8Gs but not for speed, and in that the MiG-21 was superior, also in weaponry the MiG-21 was a better fighter and if China kept lots of J-6s is because it was the only jet they could deploy in numbers and master the Technology however let`s remember that the J-8II was built in few numbers (around 400 up to 2004) and the J-7 took a long time to be a ready but the fact that the J-6 could bag F-4Es is true even it was able to shot down Soviet MiG-23M and MiG-23BNs flown by Pakistani pilots in the Soviet Afghan war so even they were no more than 4 jets i feel it is a respectable jet.
FloggerAgain I would like to emphasize that, in fact, there were no significant differences between the Soviet MiG-23ML/MLA and their WP counterparts (The MF for WP was virtually the same as the M) – and only the MLD was a step ahead, with its N008 radar with improved low-altitude detection, due to a degree of digitalisation of the CORDS and close air combat mode.
The MiG-23MLA/MLD/MF was kept in service in Bulgaria as the country was the largest WP operator and had a lot of trained aircrews and spare parts stocks (even now storages are full of certain items and the type could have been in regular use for two-to-three more years without significant investmnent). Yes,it was hard to maintain, but the maintainers were pretty good – even the rardar – a demanding piece of kit – was repaired in-house (originally, it was tobe done by overhaul facility) by base maintetance dept (TECh) using cheap (but reliable) consumer electronics components.
Do the MiG-23MLDs in Bulgarian sevice can fire the AA-11? because i read one webpage about the Bulgarian air Force and they did not mentioned it they only mentioned the R-60 and R-27
Also i feel that the MiG-23MLD without Helmet Mounted sight (HMS) and AA-11 is a waste of money because what really makes great the Flogger armed with AA-11 is the HMS, but honestly few webpages mention the Helmet Mounted Sight in MiG-23MLDs nevertheless it has been reported.
On the picture Russian/Soviet MiG-23MLD armed with R-73/AA-11 Archer
FloggerJanes was never able to “quote” CPMIEC as saying “25km.”
I’m actually asserting that the CPMIEC never stated explicitly that the FD-60 is PL-11. The was done by assumption at Janes.
CPMIEC did say that the FD-60 is related to the LY-60.
But the LY-60 definitely has a Sparrow background which is why I used the Sparrow and Aspide considerations.
Now even if we take the LY-60 with a 18km slant instead of 25km, we could still calculate a Sparrow-like range for the FD-60 since the Sea Sparrow (not the ESSM) has a 15 km range.
Now Janes might even have revised their findings in this article. There is nothing about range in this one and it said the date of completion is 2000, not 2002. The 25km aerial range is ludicrous, imho.
Google could check out the latest Janes’ entry.
Jane`s article says according to China…..corporation etc etc and that is quoting so i stay with two links rather than one , also the article is quit new from April 2004 so i do not believe the PL-11 has a longer range than 25km in fact i will give you the whole link so you can see they said 25kmJane`s PL-11 range is 25km read it and you will find they say the Air launched variant of the LY-60(PL-11/DF-60) has a range of 25km.
FloggerAccording to Yefim Gordon in “Sukhoi Interceptors” the figures Sens quoted are all correct. The G limit of the Su-15 is given as 5g.
I have found for the Su-15 also 5Gs and 6.5Gs as max overload G limits and for the J-8II the following data 8Gs and 6.9Gs (7Gs) i would say i think both jets must be around 6Gs-7Gs due to weight, configuration and engines which are similar, also i have found tha the J-8IIM is consider sluggish and heavier and less manuevrable in some links, the american links claim that the J-8IIM is rather than a F-16 match, a Chinese Su-15 equivalent
If you check the russian link i gave for the Su-15 you will find also 6.5Gs Max overload G limits.
FloggerI did a lot of study on the Floggers (and have many ex-Floggers pilots in the Bulgaria including one of the best instructors who is now my colleague and we discuss the aircraft almost every day) in Sovie service, East Europe and elsewhere.
From what I have (including study of Soviet Af documentation and recomendations for pilots – see AFM, October 2004 – Crossiath may be saw it and I wold like to recommend everybidy to read this) – I can say there are so many myths surronding this a/c. One of these is the HMD presense – there is no such kit in the MLD (23-18) – the R-73 is integratd through three newly-added ‘black boxes’in the weapons control system. No dual-target capability – any serious Russian sourse would confirm that. In fact, Soviet Af a/c were not much better than those exported to East Europe – some IFF and com facilities was the difference. The big difference was between the Soviet and Third World a/c (the so-called B-subversion).
For the MiG-23MLD (izdelie 23-18) – Bulgarian pilots were very happy with turning rate, better that than of the ML (but for aerobatics they preffered the MF due to its much softer response when pulling g) but the one they really valued was the good radar, with some better range than the ML’s (due to the very good tuning after the overhaul at 121 ARZ at Kubinka) but any MiG-23 were pretty hard to handle in high-g air combat (complex handling of the VG wing a/c combined with strict peacetime handlinbg limitations in terms of g, Vmin and AoA.) and required skilled drivers. The MiG-29 can be manevered by pilots with less experience, but was demanding for use as weapons system (just as the MiG-23) due to the compex sustem and cluttered with switches cockpit – no HOTAS environment.
In addition, all engines were detuned to save life and increase reliability (some 15 % of thurst less than the ‘brochure’ figures).The MiG-23-98 proved to be a frutiless effort as the a/c in stilloperated by poor operators who are much more concerned with keeping the airworthiness of the fleet and extending the service life beyond 17 years – up to 25 or 30 years. But they will integrate easily the R-73, with radar slaving mode added and with the now affordable and reliable HMS on the market.
It is quit interesting what you are saying i pondered like another possibility, however other bulgarian webpages said that the Russian MiG-23MLD had multitarget engagement capability but not the Bulgarian and i read in a book about of the Soviet Air Forces in Europe and in some webpages that the MiG-23MLD had Helmet Mounted Sight, also as it has been said before some Bulgarian MiG-23MLD were ex-Soviet Afghan fighter , but if you tell me that technically is impossible to fit those capabilities to the MiG-23MLD i do not give credit to such statement the ability for the Russians to adapt Helmet Mounted Sights and AA-11 was there, also the Bulgaraian pages i have read said the MiG-23MLA and MiG-23MLD in Bulgarian service were downgraded MiG-23MLD so what you said has it`s opponents even in Bulgaria and some US pilots have said it was as agile as the F-16 as some Russian webpages in certain areas of the flight envelope. Also the MiG-23-18 has no HMS but the MiG-23MLDG or in prototype form Mig-23-57, this was the one quoted as the MiG-23 adapted to fire AA-11 according to some russian Books i have read, however i will read more and i will confirm you and i will take in consideration your commentaries but i also read in a Book that the MiG-23MLD had Helmet Mounted Sight but i will do further reading so i can agree or refute your statements.
Also i know that the late varianst of MiG-21s and MiG-23s such as the MiG-23MLD were stressed for 8.5Gs overload G limits so i hardly think the MiG-23MLD yielded to the MiG-21 because the MiG-23s that were in service in the Warsaw Pact were MiG-23MFs and Mig-23ML much less maneuvrable than the MiG-23MLD that ony Bulgaria operated and if i am not wrong the German Democratic Republic also did and to confirm that fact only Bulgaria pondered to keep the MiG-23s operational further than any other Warsaw Pact country because the got the best variants the MiG-23P and MiG-23MLDs.
FloggerTo Flogger:
May be overstated estimate about the MiG-23ML – it was not a maneuverable fighter but an imporoved high speed interceptor free of the most MiG-23M’s shortcommings.
The MiG-23MLD was a real improvement – with the FCS improvements and the doogtoth – but due to the large overwing fences it lost some of its transsonic acceleration performence and had much highter low-altitude fuel consumption rate than that of the MiG-23MLA (as Bulgarian ‘Flogger-K’ pilots recall) and intially it was too unreliable – especially in terms of new equipment (such as the SOS g/AOA limiter).
In fact the MiG-23 in all versions is less agile in horizontal plane maneuvering than the MiG-21 (the MLD can be competitive to some extent, but there is no figures revealed for the turn rate) but definitely excells in the vertical maneuvering. Dogfights were never the good side of the MiG-23; it was the ultimate dash-and-slash high speed interceptor with powerful weapons suite, radar (well-tuned N008 can be better in some aspects than the N019, especially for medium/high altitude operation) and most impportantly combat radius (better than that of the MiG-29).
As experienced Soviet instructor pilots in the Mari training center demonstrated many times in the late 1980s, they can easily overhelm the MiG-29 in the group combats due to the better tactscs and use of the MiG-23MLD’s strengths and MiG-29’s shortcomings.
Airsande 🙂 i like the Mig-23ML a lot and the MiG-23MLD but without turn rates it is difficult to say how manuevrable the jet really is, but you are also forgeting that the MiG-23MLD was fitted with a Helmet Mounted Sight
and the AA-11 and if the fighter had better AoA and a 8.5Gs capability as late MiG-21s, i would assume that the MiG-23 was a good dogfighter since even it could shot down F-16s.
Let`s remeber that the MiG-23s different variants had different agility and the MiG-23ML, MiG-23MLA, MiG-23P, MiG-23MLD and Mig-23-98 were the best of the Flogger family in close encounters.
If as you said the Mig-23 could shot down the Mig-29 and it shot down F-16s the MiG-23MLD is a respectable opponent.
Also the Soviet MiG-23s were always better than the one exported to the Warsaw pact members including the MiG-23MLD of Bulgaria
FloggerThere is a long list of assumptions that is similar to the SD-10’s AGAT seekerhead BS.
Watch out for the 093 is based on Victor III crap 😀
There is nothing anywhere that points to the Victor III as a program that the Chinese was ever interested in, especially for 093.
Also the FD-60 has a 25km range. This figure was never stated by the Chinese release but instead was extrapolated by Janes from assuming an arbitary figure for the PL-11 by using the LY-60’s slant range.
Jane`s never said that was an assumptiom but they quoted China National Machinery Import & Export corporation, in fact not only Jane`s but other links such as Chinese military aviation are saying the same, you are asserting that because the PL-11 was based upon the Aspide it should have the same range as the Chines Defense today page for the PL-11 Link but Jane quoted the Chinese and they said 25Km of range.
FloggerFine, find your own…
i feel those pictures are great becasue the Su-15 has a very limited photo album available in the internet or even in books so do not give up those pictures are really cool– and are the first time i see those dark camuflages
Floggergot anything in english? 😮
Just check at the Numbers in Russian you will understand if you check the number 10,350 that is the empty weight, the Chinese link is also good but some times for Russian and Chinese Aircraft, Russian and Chinese sources are better to my taste thyan western assetions, however you can have other links that say that the J-8II only has 6.9Gs as Max since the aircraft as altitude increases acceleration decreases other links give as Crobato higher numbers for the Su-15 Flagon empty weight but 12,000kg is the empty weight at landing according to what i have read so that Flagon weight is empty at landing.
FloggerNo. The J-8II was quoted at 6.9G while making a 1K radius turn at 5,000m. That’s not maximum G per se. I suspect the Chinese use this as a kind of measure for their own. 8G is probably what the airframe is stressed at.
YOu don’t need an exact plane to work out tactics, become proficient in night flying or low level flying.
The J-7G isn’t equipped with Russian or Israeli radar. It is equipped with the KLJ-6E slotted array radar, which functionally should be similar to the Super Skyranger on the F-7MG or the Grifo S-7 on the F-7PG. It’s basically a dogfight radar with a range while search mode. They’re not going to make it BVR. At best, they will have the latest blocks of PL-8/9 as well as PL-5E on the plane, aided with helmet sighting.
I don’t think the Chinese were that impressed with the Kopyo-M or -F in a way sufficient to make a buy, even if the radars are said to be priced well below the FIAR Grifos.
in this link you can check that the J-8II has a G load limit of +7Gs, -3Gs and the J-8IIM is claimed to have a max overload of +8Gs,-3Gs however it is in Chinese and at the bottom of the Page but the numbers and G remarks are clear nevertheless i can not read Chinese although i read some Japanese and i can read the Chinese characters for J-8II but some one who reads Chinese can confirm my assertions here is the link
Floggercome on, you should know that there might be any number of reasons as to why two people may both have the wrong set of numbers. for example, you two (and many others) might have gotten the info from a magazine or website that itself got it wrong (and thats not uncommon, with even the likes of Janes and AFM making such mistakes in the past); there might have various sets of numbers floating around (as with the J8s) with few knowing which is the right one; there might be different numbers for different versons or blocks…
the best way to settle such an argument is to give a link to the source or name the magazine you got the info from.
A good Russian Linkhttp://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/su15t.html in it you can see the weight is as light as the J-8II or in few words 10350kg in empty weight but this is the Su-15T a little bit lighter that the Su-15TM data that Sens gave us.
FloggerYes, just no one can really afford an Arms race with Brazil, I mean it’s population and GDP is much bigger than any country around it.
Except Mexico but Mexico won`t do it since Brazil and Mexico need each other to face the US grip on Latin America
Floggernot taking sides (cos i dont really know who is right on the empty weight of the Su15), but last time i checked, a plane with the same max take-off weight as another much heavier plane will usually be the one better off in WVR combat.
think about it, the empty weight is just the weight of the plane itself, while the max take-off weight represents the thrust limite of the engine (usually). so what does that say about TWR of the two? with the same amount of gas and weapons load, who will have the better TWR?
also, if the plane (empty weight) is lighter, but max take-off weight is similar, then what does that say? the lighter plane can carry up more gas and/or weapons, translating into greater combat endurace.
IMHO, it is pointless to say, ‘look, these two planes have the same max weight and similar TWR at that state, so their performance must be similar’. just as planes dont ever fight when they are at empty weight, neither do they ever fight at max take-off weight.
if i were you, i’d be focusing more on getting some links and other concrete evidence to show what the empty weight of the Su15 is.
Indeed you are right but sens as me contrary to Crobato have the same numbers it`s obvious that two people without knowing each other that have read the same numbers for the the Su-15 are the ones who are right.
I can give links and i will do it but if you have a Thrust to Weight Ratio of .92 and a max take off weight very similar and the WP-13 and R-13-300 are the same engine, also both fighter have a very similar aerodymanic configuration so how can you say both fighters have different performance?in fact the J-8II initial climb rate is 224m/s and the Su-15 is 229m/s, the J-8II is said to be able to sustain 6.9Gs and the Su-15 6.5Gs, also there are different and contradictory reports about the J-8II`s performance some people say the G limits for the J-8II are +8, -3 Gs in the J-8IIM and +7, -3Gs in the J-8II others say the J-8II`s initial rate of climb is 200m/s
FloggerThe chaff/flare dispensers are not what I’m actually talking about. The distinct visible feature is the saw tooth added to the wing roots (additional to the saw tooth of the wing at sweep angle more then 16 degrees). This is a MiG-23MLD.
The aerodynamic refinements of the MiG-23MLD were mostly in the wings and wing gloves in a new indentation of the wing glove a notch in the wing glove root that allowed better AoA handling also the MiG-23MLD had a new sweep angle of 33 degrees contarry to the 45 degrees of previous Mig-23s variants and new flight controls that controlled the wing leading edge flaps in new ways but since the MiG-23ML reduction of weight and in the dorsal fin size and the fitting of the R-35 of 13,000kg transformed the MiG-23MF into an agile fighter as good as the MiG-21 late variants in few word an excellent dogfighter, the MiG-23MLD had several other refinements, including a new radar and weapons. and the best and further MiG-23MLD refinement ended in the MiG-23-98
howeve there is a myth that the Flogger was less agile than the MiG-21 since the MiG-21 as the MiG-23 has 8Gs and 8.5Gs limits and the instant turn rate is quit similar around the 12-13 degres/sec
Sign In
