cabbageman said:
There is nothing random about different levels of skills. Trainings take money and resources, and modernization requires time and organizational changes. Different divisions have different tasks, Wulumuqi AFB wouldn't have same objectives as Quzhou AFB. Concept of "Rapid Reaction Units" says it all. Almost all air forces have highly selective process for pilot recruitment, that doesn't mean trainings results are always universally great.
Already used Yang Liwei for pilot reassignment example. For division merge, see 6th Division.
Your example has not proven any merger at all with all known J-7 regiments that converted to the J-10 or J-11.
Mergers also do not prove that the cream of the crop pilots are being selected for J-10 or J-11 either.
If you get a blue screen of death on your PC, that means re-boot. The consequence is not so trivial when your fighter flight control or mission computer breakdown during air to air combats. Certainly the commercial real-time systems and selective industries such as critical medical systems and flight traffic towers have very strict requirements. But even those rare commercial systems aren't the same as military ones.
You really don't know how mission critical a bank's system is, do you? Or the telephone system of a city. Or the systems of a jet liner.
Commercial jets do not need situation awareness of E-3. Corporate Network doesn't have to worry about competitors using electronic warfare to jam its systems. No commercial datalink needs to worry about volume, power, and coolant requirement of F-16. Commercial systems are driven by ROI, military systems are driven by reliable combat power.
Commercial systems are driven by the fact that catastrophic failure can have extremely wide ranging consequences. Another thing is that military systems do not have the same volume of transactions or the same level of bandwidth that large scale mission critical commercial systems does.
The fact that military systems are radiation hardened don't mean jack shit when it comes to technology. It is not difficult to radiation or EMF harden electronics---the main principles of these are very well known since the fifties.
Military datalink are not cheap in general. If you want to put them on J-7s, then you have to spend the money on it.
And I don't believe that it is hard or as expensive as you think. The US defense industry is like Hollywood or many US corporations; a lot of money isn't spent on the actual item itself, but on bloat, corporate salaries, lawyers and lobbyists.
J-8F is not that bad. Other than better avionics and missiles, J-8F also has a better engine and structural changes. J-7 is ideal for obstructing the enemy and single aircraft engagement. But for contesting air superiority in China airspace and conducting interception with multiple aircrafts on all sides, I still pick J-8F over J-7G. Even if PLA's BVR missiles are unproven, they still complicate enemy air situation, decrease enemy attack envelope, and reduce enemy BVR kills by disrupting enemy tracking.
Which is true in a way. But generally BVR is overrated. I remember in AFM, someone pulled a list of "BVR" kills by using the number of AIM-7 and AIM-120 misisle kills in the last 20 years or so. I forgot to ask them just how many are actually done in truly medium to maximum ranges.
The structural changes on the J-8F dont' mean anything. The plane lacks the much more modern wing design of the J-7G which I already mentioned the advantages above. The J-8F still lacks basic niceties like variable camber which every jet in the last 30 years have.
The J-8II has the advantages of range, payload, and a structural airframe that makes it more suited for multirole such as air to ground attacks.
The real problem with PLAAF's BVR engagement effectiveness isn't BVR technology maturity, but tactics development. Even the Flanker pilots are still learning, I do not think J-8 pilots are that proficient.
Everyone had problems with BVR tactics, because mainly BVR isn't that proven outside of scripted exercises and totally unequal situations. Let us ask ourselves how effective a 'wall' of fighters coming into enemy air territory with their radars lighted hunting for targets. Their very presence would already have alerted the enemy, which would actually detect them first before they could on their intended targets. The enemy could approach them in radar silence, flying low for terrain masking, directed by ground countrol or AWACs, and mount passive IR attacks.
One of the problems of BVR is that technology is also working hard to degrade it as much as technology is trying to improve it. ECM, countermeasures, RCS reduction measures.
But the worst thing about BVR is that it sacrifices the element of surprise. The best anti BVR tactic is once you are detected, is to turn tail and away from the shooter. The key to beating BVR is to extend the flight time and distance of the missile. By moving away, this would force missiles to expend the fuel.
Some of the so called BVR tactics aren't as BVR as one would think. Guided by AWACS, a fighter would come within missile NEZ of the target without his radars on, suddenly light his radars up, try to get a fast lock and shoot the missile. There isn't much difference in doing that with an IR missile.
In my opinion, let's assume China tangles a regional power (not the US), the J-7s would probably get more kills than the J-8II, and the J-8II would also resort to passive attacks. I think for outdated planes, the J-7G is more cost effective than the J-8F. But because of "conventional wisdom" about BVR, along with the range, payload and radar advantages, the J-8II will last longer in PLAAF service than the J-7.
Just a guess.
