Jian's vs F-22/F-35??

cabbageman · Apr 23, 2006

tphuang:
If you do work in IT industry, then you should know the cost of increasing dependability. Costs increase exponentially as dependability requirement increases. There is also an obvious tradeoff between dependability and performance. All system must deal with reliability, but that doesn't mean the reliability requirements are all the same. Some companies even choose systems with low reliability that are always available, as long as system failures could be repaired quickly and no data are damaged. Military combat units usually could not opt for that path. Overall, military tends to emphasize dependability because they have no choices in the matter, while commercial industries could choose differently according to industry and sizes. Your example doesn't change the overall trend.

I don't know where you get the information that JF-17 would have datalink capability equivalent of Link 16. But anyway, you still don't get the resource allocation. Everything is cheaper doesn't mean datalinks are free. Since other things are cheaper too, the money you spend on J-7 datalink could still be invested elsewhere effectively.

You could certainly question my credentials. But on Internet, you wouldn't know if a pig is typing the keyboard. I'm not going to reveal any personal information on the net to “prove” anything. If you believe I have no credibility, so be it. State your concern, and everyone else could see.

crobato:
I could say the same thing about your belief on age and pilot selection, you don't even have any examples. "Pilot performance matters" and "There are different skill levels for pilots" are really common sense rules.

Compare a regular commercial jet and a military jet, you would find that the military counterpart has all the same basic requirements and more. No one expects a Boeing 747 to have the same datalink requirement as F-15.

Chinese defense industry has its share of corruption and inefficiency. The resource allocation problem doesn't change even if Chinese systems are cheaper than US.

crobato said:
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.

AIM-7 has advertised range of 50km or more, but Israel war experience has shown that the Sparrow is effective only within 16km. It's true BVR weapons aren't as great as some people think, but they do have longer range than IR missiles.

crobato said:
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.

I forget who said it, "Real combat is military's equivalent of market effect in business." PLAAF has more to worry than some of the other combat proven air forces.

Defender doesn't have ground control and AWACS exclusively. Attacker would not light up fighter radars when they could limit emission and rely on AWACS themselves.

crobato said:
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.

There are always countermeasures and counter-countermeasures for everything.

At 100-200 km, it's relatively easy to disengage. But once you get much closer, it depends on speed, height, and other performance factors. Turning around could mean that you are setting yourself up to be killed. If the enemy don't try to illuminate the target early on and use your radar blind spots, it's not so easy to know when you are detected.

crobato said:
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.

Other than true stealth aircrafts, it's usually not that simple. If you are attacking a high value target like AWACS or engage in multiple aircraft air combat, there are many variables. To get into position, you could use a sweep, pincer, or drag. Enemy could disperse horizontally, vertically, or mixed. If enemy has mixed formation, they could send heavy fighters for BVR attack first and allow light fighters to engage WVR, or they could use heavy fighters as a mini-AWACS and send light fighter ahead for combination attack.

A lot of air combat kills occurred when enemies died without even knowing someone fired shots at them. But not all situations are like that, you have to go prepared.

crobato said:
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.

Depends on combat condition. Against enemy with AWACS on the open sea, J-7s will not do well. J-7s are most useful when there are no other means of generating high sortie rates. PLA's new fighters made that a nonissue.

crobato · Apr 23, 2006

cabbageman said:
crobato:
I could say the same thing about your belief on age and pilot selection, you don't even have any examples. "Pilot performance matters" and "There are different skill levels for pilots" are really common sense rules.

Irrelevant. You have not shown any proof that J-7 pilots are in any sense deficient to pilot a more advanced plane. You have not shown unit mergers which is specifically arranged to consolidate top pilots into one unit prior to conversion. Your mention of mergers of the 6th and 12th Division is kind of funny and far from proving that point. They were being merged from nearly defunct J-6 regiments.

Compare a regular commercial jet and a military jet, you would find that the military counterpart has all the same basic requirements and more. No one expects a Boeing 747 to have the same datalink requirement as F-15.

No one expects a J-7 to have the same datalink requirement as an F-15E. FYI, a J-7 only needs GCI to fighter, and AWACS to fighter, and it does not necessarily need the kind of datalink that you can for example use to target ships with antiship missiles obtained from a target spotter. AWACS to fighter isn't much of a big leap over GCI to fighter; AWACS is basically GCI on wings.

FYI, Link 16 on an F-5E is probably a waste.

Chinese defense industry has its share of corruption and inefficiency. The resource allocation problem doesn't change even if Chinese systems are cheaper than US.

Prove that.

The Chinese systems do not have the same extent of corporate bloat and lobbying in the US. In fact, Chinese defense industry remains state owned and controlled and is not completely independent entities.

AIM-7 has advertised range of 50km or more, but Israel war experience has shown that the Sparrow is effective only within 16km. It's true BVR weapons aren't as great as some people think, but they do have longer range than IR missiles.

Newer generation IR missiles have a range now of 15 to 30km. In fact, they can be used in near BVR ranges. Unlike larger BVRAAMs, their superior agility and tracking abilities means a wider kill envelope relative to range.

I forget who said it, "Real combat is military's equivalent of market effect in business." PLAAF has more to worry than some of the other combat proven air forces.

Defender doesn't have ground control and AWACS exclusively. Attacker would not light up fighter radars when they could limit emission and rely on AWACS themselves.

And that makes J-8II more viable than J-7s?

By lighting up their radars, the J-8II gives themselves away to an enemy with AWACS. How does that make the situation better?

There are always countermeasures and counter-countermeasures for everything.

At 100-200 km, it's relatively easy to disengage. But once you get much closer, it depends on speed, height, and other performance factors. Turning around could mean that you are setting yourself up to be killed. If the enemy don't try to illuminate the target early on and use your radar blind spots, it's not so easy to know when you are detected.

You can still disengage even if you are within 20km to 30km. Once the target is in the pursuit position, the missile is being forced to chase the target and that expends fuel even more. Add barrel rolls and maneuvers to the flight pattern, and the missile will run out of energy. A missile that has an effective range of 50km against a head on target, will only have 20km effective range against a receding target.

Other than true stealth aircrafts, it's usually not that simple. If you are attacking a high value target like AWACS or engage in multiple aircraft air combat, there are many variables. To get into position, you could use a sweep, pincer, or drag. Enemy could disperse horizontally, vertically, or mixed.

Both planes could do this guided by GCI or AWACS.

If enemy has mixed formation, they could send heavy fighters for BVR attack first and allow light fighters to engage WVR, or they could use heavy fighters as a mini-AWACS and send light fighter ahead for combination attack.

Which is what PLAAF would do. J-11,s J-8IIs, and J-10s act like flying SAM platforms then follow up with J-7s on the rear.

A lot of air combat kills occurred when enemies died without even knowing someone fired shots at them. But not all situations are like that, you have to go prepared.

True but it is irrelevant in the topic at hand.

Depends on combat condition. Against enemy with AWACS on the open sea, J-7s will not do well. J-7s are most useful when there are no other means of generating high sortie rates. PLA's new fighters made that a nonissue.

This is not a comparison between J-7 and J-10. The issue is J-7 vs. J-8II.

I already mentioned to you the flight deficiencies of the J-8II. It is going to be more detectable and when fired upon, less survivable, other than to turn tail. The J-8II requires much higher maintenance costs, having two engines and is much more complex. I doubt that it has the flight and mission availability and turnaround of the J-7. In peacetime it would matter a lot with pilot training and exercises, because as a result, J-7 pilots could log more training hours, and practice ACM with greater confidence from a more maneuverable plane. I always maintained that J-7s are still used by elite pilots on more advanced fighters in order to get their flight hours up.

As for the open sea scenarios, this is not necessarily a J-7 operating requirement but the J-7 should still be able to handle shorter distances. The J-7 still has a search radar, and China now has AEW/AWACS and ships that could act as GCI. The J-8II may not necessarily have longer range than the double delta J-7 (not the older J-7 with the straight delta wings). The double deltas with variable camber should be more efficient on lift, so they could maintain the same lift for a lower speed, burning less fuel in the process, while at the same time, the wings could hold more fuel over the older wing design.

Not saying that the J-8II is not useful. Still is. But I think you dismiss the J-7 and its pilots too readily.

cabbageman · Apr 24, 2006

You have not shown any proof that J-7 pilots are picked for conversion because of age only. You have not shown any proof that all PLAAF pilots must be great and there are no different levels of skills. You have not shown that all J-7 pilots are special grade pilots. You have not shown regular J-7 pilots are all as good as pilots from Aggressor units.

Sounds familiar? :roll:

crobato said:
No one expects a J-7 to have the same datalink requirement as an F-15E. FYI, a J-7 only needs GCI to fighter, and AWACS to fighter, and it does not necessarily need the kind of datalink that you can for example use to target ships with antiship missiles obtained from a target spotter. AWACS to fighter isn't much of a big leap over GCI to fighter; AWACS is basically GCI on wings.

Comes back to the same thing: If it's not ECM-resistant and it's slow, why bother spending the extra resources when voice control is enough?

crobato said:
Prove that.

The Chinese systems do not have the same extent of corporate bloat and lobbying in the US. In fact, Chinese defense industry remains state owned and controlled and is not completely independent entities.

Not talking about same type of US inefficiency. Inefficiency of Chinese state owned enterprise is common knowledge: Subsidization, politicization, over-centralization, over-regularization, pricing structure, and competitive issues.

crobato said:
Newer generation IR missiles have a range now of 15 to 30km. In fact, they can be used in near BVR ranges. Unlike larger BVRAAMs, their superior agility and tracking abilities means a wider kill envelope relative to range.

Apples and oranges. Theoretical maximum range of IR missiles cannot be compare to actual combat range of radar missiles. Don't forget 30km is also advertisement figure.

crobato said:
By lighting up their radars, the J-8II gives themselves away to an enemy with AWACS. How does that make the situation better?

You said BVR engagement is not effective because fighter radars searching for enemy would be detected by opponent's AWACS. Fighters do not have to search enemy by using their own radar early. They could rely on AWACS themselves.

crobato said:
You can still disengage even if you are within 20km to 30km. Once the target is in the pursuit position, the missile is being forced to chase the target and that expends fuel even more. Add barrel rolls and maneuvers to the flight pattern, and the missile will run out of energy. A missile that has an effective range of 50km against a head on target, will only have 20km effective range against a receding target.

That is assuming you have superior speed and acceleration performance, and under optimal condition. MiG-25 could run away if J-7 is chasing it. Not so easy for J-7 to run away if F-22 is chasing it. You also forget when you are turning, the enemy could fire more than one missile for follow up attack.

crobato said:
This is not a comparison between J-7 and J-10. The issue is J-7 vs. J-8II.

I'm not comparing J-7 with J-10, but the missions of secondary aircrafts as new aircrafts are introduced. If the air force doesn't have advanced aircrafts like J-10/F-16, but only aircrafts like F-104/J-8, then J-7 or MiG-21 are great because they are simple aircrafts that could generate a lot of sorties given enough quantity. Newer aircrafts like J-10 have greater endurance and range. With new aircrafts' higher turn-around rate and better combat effectiveness, the attractiveness of older aircrafts' simplicity and sortie generation is gone.

crobato said:
I already mentioned to you the flight deficiencies of the J-8II. It is going to be more detectable and when fired upon, less survivable, other than to turn tail.

And I already mentioned to you J-8 could detect the enemy faster, get into shooting position faster, and attack enemy sooner.

crobato said:
Not saying that the J-8II is not useful. Still is. But I think you dismiss the J-7 and its pilots too readily.

Not saying J-7s are useless in all situation or all J-7 pilots suck. Only that I see J-7 unfit for a modern PLAAF structure. Too many people always over criticized J-8s on Chinese forums. As local interceptors, I still think J-8 is more useful.

Roger604 · Apr 24, 2006

cabbageman said:
I don't know where you get the information that JF-17 would have datalink capability equivalent of Link 16. But anyway, you still don't get the resource allocation. Everything is cheaper doesn't mean datalinks are free. Since other things are cheaper too, the money you spend on J-7 datalink could still be invested elsewhere effectively.

You're just contradicting yourself. :roll:

First you say that datalinks are so effective, but PLAAF don't have the money to afford it. Then after others point out that China can make cheap equivalents, you say that PLAAF won't get it because they can use the money better elsewhere.

WTF? So are datalinks vital or are they extraneous?

crobato · Apr 24, 2006

You have not shown any proof that J-7 pilots are picked for conversion because of age only. You have not shown any proof that all PLAAF pilots must be great and there are no different levels of skills. You have not shown that all J-7 pilots are special grade pilots. You have not shown regular J-7 pilots are all as good as pilots from Aggressor units.

The pilots from the Aggressor units are taken from J-7 units. And it is already shown that all J-10 and recent Flanker J-11 conversions are from J-7 units. The older pilots are from J-6 groups, which are only retired and not replaced.

As already mentioned to you, you know zilch about J-7 pilots.

Comes back to the same thing: If it's not ECM-resistant and it's slow, why bother spending the extra resources when voice control is enough?

Tell me, what is so difficult about sending range, bearing and targeting data across a datalink. Missiles do it all the time.

Not talking about same type of US inefficiency. Inefficiency of Chinese state owned enterprise is common knowledge: Subsidization, politicization, over-centralization, over-regularization, pricing structure, and competitive issues.

And when did this ever resulted in overpriced Chinese products? Huh?

Apples and oranges. Theoretical maximum range of IR missiles cannot be compare to actual combat range of radar missiles. Don't forget 30km is also advertisement figure.

Actually it's not when you factor propellant advances.

You said BVR engagement is not effective because fighter radars searching for enemy would be detected by opponent's AWACS.

They would be detected by opposition RWR.

Fighters do not have to search enemy by using their own radar early. They could rely on AWACS themselves.

Searching is not enough. AWACS cannot provide precise targeting and tracking data which the aircraft Track While Scan and Single Target Tracking mode can provide. AWACS tends to work on longer frequency wave length, while trying to cover a larger area. They can tell you what's there, they can't provide precise targeting data.

Ground stations can also provide very long range, low frequency area search.

That is assuming you have superior speed and acceleration performance, and under optimal condition. MiG-25 could run away if J-7 is chasing it. Not so easy for J-7 to run away if F-22 is chasing it. You also forget when you are turning, the enemy could fire more than one missile for follow up attack.

Irrelevant.

J-8IIs are not MiG-25s and F-22s in terms of supersonic performance. In fact, the J-8II isn't any significantly faster than the J-7.

I'm not comparing J-7 with J-10, but the missions of secondary aircrafts as new aircrafts are introduced. If the air force doesn't have advanced aircrafts like J-10/F-16, but only aircrafts like F-104/J-8, then J-7 or MiG-21 are great because they are simple aircrafts that could generate a lot of sorties given enough quantity. Newer aircrafts like J-10 have greater endurance and range. With new aircrafts' higher turn-around rate and better combat effectiveness, the attractiveness of older aircrafts' simplicity and sortie generation is gone.

This is not a comparison between new and old. This is a comparison between old and old.

The J-8II will not produce the same mission generation and sortie rates than the J-7 due to its inherent greater complexity.

And I already mentioned to you J-8 could detect the enemy faster, get into shooting position faster, and attack enemy sooner.

Only in a BVR fashion, and with mixed results. The J-8II will not produce results superior to the J-7 when both are supported by AWACS or GCI.

Not saying J-7s are useless in all situation or all J-7 pilots suck. Only that I see J-7 unfit for a modern PLAAF structure. Too many people always over criticized J-8s on Chinese forums. As local interceptors, I still think J-8 is more useful.

I don't disagree that J-7 is unfit for modern PLAAF structure. But it is still useful and with modern AAMs, it is still a threat. The J-8 with its greater payload, BVR capabilities and larger radar is still useful, but you have to weigh BVR advantages vs. the WVR advantages of the other.

I also don't agree that the J-8II is fit for modern PLAAF structure either. The plane lacks the essential maneuverability needed for survival, and it is inefficient for loitering and even ground missions. The J-8II is like a manned rocket burning up fuel at a prodigious rate and it does not like flying at lower speeds where it can afford to loiter and use up less fuel. It does not give much flying confidence for the pilot and attempts to export it always fail with no so flattering experiences from pilots of potential customer nations. The plane is relatively tricky to fly at lower speeds, and it is interesting after the EP-3 incident, only J-7s were authorized for interception missions. The cockpit is narrow and like the MiG-23 and spined MiG-21s, have poor visibility, quite inferior to the J-7. Even with relatively old cockpits full of gauges, the J-7 looks far better than any J-8II cockpit I have seen except for the latest ones with twin MFDs.

There are only a few planes worst than the J-8II, like the F-104 Starfighter and the F-100 Super Sabre. The MiG-25/31 is also a one trick pony that is hardly maneuverable and is extremely inefficient in terms of fuel usage and costs of ownership.

The J-8II remains not a popular plane within the PLAAF, and yet the J-7 and even the Q-5 remains so.

In terms of a peactime airforce which the PLAAF is probably truly is, the J-7 is far more useful in training pilots and has much lower costs of ownership and procurement. Old generation planes are not something you are supposed to spend too much money on.

One thing I can say about the J-8s is that they are tough planes regardless of their faults. Most of the first generation J-8Is with the round inlet for example are still around upgraded to two different versions.

crobato · Apr 24, 2006

Let me clarify to you what it means when J-7 regiments are being used to convert to J-10 and J-11 regiments.

It means that these regiments are already being prepped for conversion even before the new planes arrive or become available. The training is hardened and lengthened for many of them, and the best recruits are being put into these units. This process occurs well in advance of the new planes availability. To put it in perspective, these are your future J-10 and J-11 crack regiments. They are not chosen suddenly one morning with an announcement they will change to J-10 or J-11.

cabbageman · Apr 24, 2006

crobato said:
It means that these regiments are already being prepped for conversion even before the new planes arrive or become available. The training is hardened and lengthened for many of them, and the best recruits are being put into these units. This process occurs well in advance of the new planes availability. To put it in perspective, these are your future J-10 and J-11 crack regiments. They are not chosen suddenly one morning with an announcement they will change to J-10 or J-11.

This is the same as what I said. I said good pilots end up in J-11, J-10 or SU-30, and any J-7 pilots that moved up will be based on performance. Good pilots get priority in assignment and conversion. Inferior or inexperience ones stay in units with older aircrafts.

crobato said:
Tell me, what is so difficult about sending range, bearing and targeting data across a datalink. Missiles do it all the time.

AAM usually only have one way datalink, that's why newer missiles like AIM-120D and Meteor are different. More importantly don't forget missiles are jammed all the time, this is why military spent a lot of resources on ECM and ECCM. Notice missile jamming resistance is directly associated with the cost and sophistication of the missile. Latest Tactical Tomahawk has a smaller version of MIDS datalink. Compare Tomahawk or JASSM-ER with HY-1.

The most basic way to go around jamming is to lower the transmission rate, which degrades the capability. You could also make the datalink a wideband, use spread spectrum techniques, install frequency-hopping technology, or other more sophisticated methods. These increase complexity and cost.

Simple in theory doesn't mean cheap or easy to implement.

crobato said:
And when did this ever resulted in overpriced Chinese products? Huh?

Resource allocation... J-10 is cheaper than F-16, but it's still more expensive than FC-1 or J-7. You still pay what you get.

Inefficiency also "costs" in delay or inferiority, which affect the cost effectiveness.

crobato said:
Actually it's not when you factor propellant advances.

IR missile's shorter range has more to do with seeker sensitivity and guidance. Doesn't matter if your propellant technology advances give you 30km range, that doesn't equal actual effective missile envelope in combat.

crobato said:
Searching is not enough. AWACS cannot provide precise targeting and tracking data which the aircraft Track While Scan and Single Target Tracking mode can provide. AWACS tends to work on longer frequency wave length, while trying to cover a larger area. They can tell you what's there, they can't provide precise targeting data.

Fighters don't keep continuous scanning for fun. They rely on AWACS for long range detection, then only use their own radar when it's close to the weapon engagement range. This is different from "'wall of fighters coming into enemy air territory with their radars lighted hunting for targets". The only time they do that is when they already have air supremacy and not many enemy aircrafts could engage them.

crobato said:
J-8IIs are not MiG-25s and F-22s in terms of supersonic performance. In fact, the J-8II isn't any significantly faster than the J-7.

Talking about MiG-25 is easier to understand. Doesn't mean smaller performance gaps don't matter. In air combat even one second could mean the difference between life and death. J-8's higher operational ceiling and faster speed does make a difference.

Either way, disengagement isn't that easy at closer range. It depends on aircraft performance and contact conditions.

crobato said:
This is not a comparison between new and old. This is a comparison between old and old.

The J-8II will not produce the same mission generation and sortie rates than the J-7 due to its inherent greater complexity.

You don't compare two older aircrafts to decide the requirement. You decide the overall requirement first, then see which older aircraft is more fit.

I didn't say J-8 would have better sortie generation rate.

crobato said:
Only in a BVR fashion, and with mixed results. The J-8II will not produce results superior to the J-7 when both are supported by AWACS or GCI.

BVR affects WVR.

crobato said:
In terms of a peactime airforce which the PLAAF is probably truly is, the J-7 is far more useful in training pilots and has much lower costs of ownership and procurement. Old generation planes are not something you are supposed to spend too much money on.

For normal WVR trainings, I agree J-7 is much better. But neither are really that good for training. It's better to use LIFT and twin seater of the best combat aircrafts.

Roger604 said:
You're just contradicting yourself. :roll:

First you say that datalinks are so effective, but PLAAF don't have the money to afford it. Then after others point out that China can make cheap equivalents, you say that PLAAF won't get it because they can use the money better elsewhere.

WTF? So are datalinks vital or are they extraneous?

What contradiction? Good datalinks are expensive, inferior datalinks are cheap. Putting good ones on outdated J-7 is waste of resources, and putting inferior ones do not make a major difference therefore a waste too.

I never said "PLAAF don't have the money to afford it." It's about resource allocation, not absolute price. It's not about datalink is good or bad, but how to get more bang out of your buck.

People could disagree with the assumptions, but the logic is very straghtforward.

crobato · Apr 25, 2006

cabbageman said:
This is the same as what I said. I said good pilots end up in J-11, J-10 or SU-30, and any J-7 pilots that moved up will be based on performance. Good pilots get priority in assignment and conversion. Inferior or inexperience ones stay in units with older aircrafts.

Sorry but I keep telling you, conversions are not done by picking pilots from all over the PLAAF, but by a complete unit basis. It is the entire unit judged as a whole, including its team work, the handling of maintenance, and the operations of the base. PLAAF don't pick and form units like Adolf Galland did with his JV-44.

There is nothing to prove by observation on your statement, and everything to prove on mine.

AAM usually only have one way datalink, that's why newer missiles like AIM-120D and Meteor are different.

AAMs do not need two way datalinks, unless you are supposing that the missile works on a TVM principle or has a man in the loop system. GCI to fighter and AWACS to fighter datalinks generally only work in a one way principle.

More importantly don't forget missiles are jammed all the time, this is why military spent a lot of resources on ECM and ECCM. Notice missile jamming resistance is directly associated with the cost and sophistication of the missile. Latest Tactical Tomahawk has a smaller version of MIDS datalink. Compare Tomahawk or JASSM-ER with HY-1.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The most basic way to go around jamming is to lower the transmission rate, which degrades the capability. You could also make the datalink a wideband, use spread spectrum techniques, install frequency-hopping technology, or other more sophisticated methods. These increase complexity and cost.

Simple in theory doesn't mean cheap or easy to implement.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. None of whom suggests this would result in a terrific increase in cost. Likewise ECM techniques would also affect radar. And by the way, even regular telecom uses wideband, spread spectrum, LPI and frequency hopping techniques, right in your cellphone.

[quote[
Resource allocation... J-10 is cheaper than F-16, but it's still more expensive than FC-1 or J-7. You still pay what you get.

Inefficiency also "costs" in delay or inferiority, which affect the cost effectiveness.[/quote]

I wonder why you keep posing increasingly irrelevant remarks relative to the topic at hand?

How does that produce "expensive" Chinese products? How does that compare to the monumental corporate bloat in the US today?

IR missile's shorter range has more to do with seeker sensitivity and guidance. Doesn't matter if your propellant technology advances give you 30km range, that doesn't equal actual effective missile envelope in combat.

What really matters is that missile effective ranges are usually shorter than what most people think---irrelevant of propellant changes, length of the missiles and its potential range, performance or speed. That's because it is not the performance of the missile that counts, but the reduction of all warning times.

It does not matter if your missile has a 100km NEZ and a 100km seeker range. Your effective chances of killing is still not good when this missile happens to warn its target while still over 100km distant, allowing the target to perform all sorts of evasion. That is the fundamental disadvantage if you increase ARH seeker range, or with any long range missile. There is too much giveaway.

Fighters don't keep continuous scanning for fun. They rely on AWACS for long range detection, then only use their own radar when it's close to the weapon engagement range. This is different from "'wall of fighters coming into enemy air territory with their radars lighted hunting for targets". The only time they do that is when they already have air supremacy and not many enemy aircrafts could engage them.

Look. Just because you think this is ideal, does not mean people will always follow it. As a matter of fact, F-15s use a wall of fighters tactic on COPE exercises and got a surprise waiting for them.

Talking about MiG-25 is easier to understand. Doesn't mean smaller performance gaps don't matter. In air combat even one second could mean the difference between life and death. J-8's higher operational ceiling and faster speed does make a difference.

If you are back in the sixties intercepting B-52 bombers. Oh wait, Buffs are still operational today.

Either way, disengagement isn't that easy at closer range. It depends on aircraft performance and contact conditions.

Of course, but the other aircraft is forced into a choice of pursuing or continue his mission.

You don't compare two older aircrafts to decide the requirement. You decide the overall requirement first, then see which older aircraft is more fit.

Both do not really fit. The PLAAF is just making effective use of outdated resources.

I didn't say J-8 would have better sortie generation rate.

You damn right it doesn't.

BVR affects WVR.

Excuse me but WVR for the J-8II isn't something people plan for. There isn't much for the J-8II other than shoot and scoot tactics. The J-8II probably depends on J-7s to follow up after BVR attacks.

For normal WVR trainings, I agree J-7 is much better. But neither are really that good for training. It's better to use LIFT and twin seater of the best combat aircrafts.

I have to disagree with you on that, since the J-7 is being used as fighter trainer not just in the PLAAF but also in customer air forces. As a matter of fact, the JL-9/FTC-2000 project is intended to further its use on the field. No one is making a J-8II trainer double seater, but there are J-7 trainer double seaters.

LIFT is not necessarily superior to a J-7 in WVR combat, and probably more in the disadvantage.

What contradiction? Good datalinks are expensive, inferior datalinks are cheap. Putting good ones on outdated J-7 is waste of resources, and putting inferior ones do not make a major difference therefore a waste too.

Oh really? Prove that statement. Give me an actual price on the cost of upgrading a datalink compared to the entire cost of an entire plane. Datalinks surely will not even come close to complete radar systems, which often cost more than a Fishbed airframe itself. And yet we see effective conversions of such like the MiG-21 Bison. What constitutes an "inferior" datalink and what constitutes a "superior" one.

The more you talk the more I think you don't know what you really are talking about.

you are starting to be full of nonsense here like I can see with your comments on IT. Like this.

If you do work in IT industry, then you should know the cost of increasing dependability. Costs increase exponentially as dependability requirement increases. There is also an obvious tradeoff between dependability and performance. All system must deal with reliability, but that doesn't mean the reliability requirements are all the same. Some companies even choose systems with low reliability that are always available, as long as system failures could be repaired quickly and no data are damaged. Military combat units usually could not opt for that path. Overall, military tends to emphasize dependability because they have no choices in the matter, while commercial industries could choose differently according to industry and sizes. Your example doesn't change the overall trend.

cabbageman · Apr 26, 2006

crobato said:
Sorry but I keep telling you, conversions are not done by picking pilots from all over the PLAAF, but by a complete unit basis. It is the entire unit judged as a whole, including its team work, the handling of maintenance, and the operations of the base. PLAAF don't pick and form units like Adolf Galland did with his JV-44.

You treat PLAAF units as unmoving organization, said unit conversions are done as long as pilots are young and "it's got nothing to do if you're better or not." You also said there aren't any third grade pilots in J-7s, which is untrue. Pilots have different grades: special, first, second, and third. They get evaluated on a regular basis.

So I mentioned reassignment. It's not that whenever PLAAF forms a new J-11/J-10/MKK unit, PLAAF grabs good pilots from everywhere. Pilots’ assignments and reassignments don't work that way. Strategical location and unit history make some units more important than the others. When you begin fresh out of PLAAF academy, better pilots are assigned accordingly. If you perform well, you move up the ladder and could be reassigned, sometimes within the different regiments of same division. If your unit performs well such as training reforms, you also get awarded accordingly.

When PLAAF gives a division new aircraft, better pilots have the priority. If you are a third grade pilot with mediocre performance, there is no way PLAAF allows you to get OCU training because you're young and in the same division. Suppose a division has two regiments of older aircrafts, and about to receive one regiment of J-11. The lower performance pilots would probably remain at the regiment with older aircraft.

crobato said:
AAMs do not need two way datalinks, unless you are supposing that the missile works on a TVM principle or has a man in the loop system. GCI to fighter and AWACS to fighter datalinks generally only work in a one way principle.

AAM don't "need" it, but it enhances performance. Two way datalink would help IFF because the fighter could get updates from the missile.

Even older datalink like Link 4 has both one way and two way modes.

crobato said:
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. None of whom suggests this would result in a terrific increase in cost. Likewise ECM techniques would also affect radar. And by the way, even regular telecom uses wideband, spread spectrum, LPI and frequency hopping techniques, right in your cellphone..

How could EW and network design parameters be irrelevant for datalink? This is directly tie to complexity and cost! You think datalink with unsecured 600 bps, 100km range connection cost the same as a highly jam-resistant Ku-band datalink with 500km range?

Cellphone is irrelevant. Police cars have radar detector. But no one will talk about how police radar works the same way as airborne fighter radar in theory, when talking about costs of different fighter radars.

crobato said:
How does that produce "expensive" Chinese products? How does that compare to the monumental corporate bloat in the US today?

Answer this:
1. For PLAAF, is J-10 "expensive" compare to J-7?
2. Do you think there is absolutely no need to consider time, cost, and capability tradeoff in all situation, as long as cost is low?

You are still doing price comparisons with external entity, when the actual problem is internal resource allocation.

crobato said:
It does not matter if your missile has a 100km NEZ and a 100km seeker range. Your effective chances of killing is still not good when this missile happens to warn its target while still over 100km distant, allowing the target to perform all sorts of evasion. That is the fundamental disadvantage if you increase ARH seeker range, or with any long range missile. There is too much giveaway.

Longer range AAMs like Meteor do not increase the maximum range to shoot them at maximum range. If your enemy is at 40km and you have 100km BVR ramjet missile on your supercruise fighter, you could launch your missile using datalinked information provided by your friendly aircraft. The additional range of the BVR missile would make the dodging much more difficult.

Longer range means you could decide to attack at longer or shorter range. Shorter range means you have no choice.

crobato said:
Look. Just because you think this is ideal, does not mean people will always follow it. As a matter of fact, F-15s use a wall of fighters tactic on COPE exercises and got a surprise waiting for them.

Tactic mistakes by some pilots in a single exercise do not render BVR engagement ineffective. You could also talk about tactical mistakes of some pilots in WVR, that doesn't mean WVR becomes ineffective by example.

crobato said:
Excuse me but WVR for the J-8II isn't something people plan for. There isn't much for the J-8II other than shoot and scoot tactics. The J-8II probably depends on J-7s to follow up after BVR attacks.

Wars seldom follow you what you plan for. It's not J-8's BVR missiles give it huge head on. But J-7's lack of BVR missiles that handicaps it. When J-7s engage enemy, the lack of BVR missile means enemy aircrafts with BVR missiles could shoot early, forcing J-7 to maneuver in unfavorable conditions. This very likely offset WVR performance.

crobato said:
I have to disagree with you on that, since the J-7 is being used as fighter trainer not just in the PLAAF but also in customer air forces. As a matter of fact, the JL-9/FTC-2000 project is intended to further its use on the field. No one is making a J-8II trainer double seater, but there are J-7 trainer double seaters.

LIFT is not necessarily superior to a J-7 in WVR combat, and probably more in the disadvantage.

For smaller air forces, J-7s could very well be the ideal choice. As a regional power with larger air force, China has different requirements.

Two seater for either J-7 or J-8 are both useless in the long run.

Aircraft's WVR performance is important, but not only factor in training. It's better to use a cost effective dedicated trainer.

crobato said:
Give me an actual price on the cost of upgrading a datalink compared to the entire cost of an entire plane. Datalinks surely will not even come close to complete radar systems, which often cost more than a Fishbed airframe itself. And yet we see effective conversions of such like the MiG-21 Bison.

If PLAAF already has 700 brand new J-7G, then I would agree datalink upgrade might be more attractive than buying another regiment of J-10 or two regiments of FC-1. Unfortunately the actual choice is not between the equal price tag of one better aircraft or 40~60 high-end datalink terminals. The choice is between:
1. Obtain smaller fleet of new aircrafts with less personnel, better capability, and longer life cycle.
2. Upgrade older aircrafts with opposite attributes.

We must remember the hidden costs of maintaining old aircrafts reaching the end of the service life. A lot of India pilots were killed in MiG-21 training accidents, including Bison. India only keeps MiG-21 because LCA delays again and again.

It doesn't matter if something is dirt cheap. If the end result isn't your goal, then it's a waste of resources.

crobato said:
What constitutes an "inferior" datalink and what constitutes a "superior" one.

I already used EW capability as example, which was strangely labeled "irrelevant" by you.

Roger604 · Apr 26, 2006

Cabbageman, you keep misconstruing other people's arguments and making irrelevant statements as if they respond to these arguments.

What proof do you have that the datalinks in China's aircraft can't perform nearly as well as the US ones? What are their specifications?

If you don't have any proof, and you just think US rulez because its better then just leave it at that. The discussion is pointless.

Jian's vs F-22/F-35??

cabbageman

New Member

crobato

Colonel

cabbageman

New Member

Roger604

Senior Member

crobato

Colonel

crobato

Colonel

cabbageman

New Member

crobato

Colonel

cabbageman

New Member

Roger604

Senior Member