cabbageman said:
This is PLANAF, but still applies:
王伟等10多名新飞行员，经过上级层层挑选，从各个部队抽调到这里，改装新型歼击机。
"Wang Wei and more than ten new pilots, after went thru higher authority's layered selection process , was transferred to here from different units, to convert to new jian-ji aircraft"
1998年春，已经飞过两种机型的王伟听说部队又将改装国产最先进歼击机，立即报名申请第一批改装。
"1999 spring, having flown two types of aircraft, Wang Wei heard unit would convert to latest domestic jian-ji aircraft, immediately applied to be the first for conversion."
经过又一次的技术考核和筛选，他如愿以偿地分到了当时的新机团，并且是赫赫有名、战功卓著，其前身为“英雄中队”的一大队。
"After another skill test and screening, he finally got his wish to be assigned to the new aircraft unit, the famous, battle-tested, "Hero Squadron" First Unit"
If you think pilot grading is "speculative", then you don't know much about PLA training.
You are the one who has no proof about pilots entering conversion based primary on age.
Really? Your article mentioned "new" pilots. That also means young. Please note that it was his *unit* that was chosen for conversion (to a J-8D to be precise), and his conversion wasn't based on the individual but unit. Let me add to you that there are no "new" regiments in the nineties added to the PLANAF created just for the J-8D. If you want to read between the lines about the so called "Hero Squadron", it means I-don't-really-want-to-tell-you-about-my-real-ORBAT. Here is a clue---how can a "new" unit be , new, famous and battle tested in the same sentence.
Why don't you get a listing of J-10 and J-11 regiments that converted from J-7 regiments. Here is just a few.
33rd Division regiment in Chongging to Su-27/J-11.
6th Division regiment in Lanzhou MR
7th Division regiment to J-11
18th Division regiment to Su-30MKK
14th Division regiment to J-11
one or two 44th Division regiment to J-10 (all 44th Division regiments are J-7s).
Recent J-10 conversion of a 3rd Division regiment is also a J-7 regiment, since there is only J-7 regiments and an Su-30 regiment in that division.
Not speculation. Old AAMs don't have them, but the new ones do.
"The designation AIM-120D refers to a projected version of the AIM-120C with a two-way data link, more accurate navigation, an expanded no-escape envelope and a 50% increase in range. The AIM-120D is a joint USAF/USN project, and current plans call for an IOC on the F/A-18E/F in FY2008."
"For mid-course navigation the weapon can utilise its own Inertial Navigation System combined with information provided by the launch, or any friendly aircraft via the two way datalink."
Now that you have shown that a two way datalink is workable for an expendable missile, what kind of economics would prevent it for use in upgrading fighters?
This is an empty question. What is the definition of "enormous"? I cannot believe you are asking this type of question. Why don't you ask people to prove J-10 is more expensive than FC-1 while you are at it.
Is J-10 that much more expensive than an FC-1? That is much harder to prove.
You really don't have any proof at all that trying to make a jam proof datalink results in a tremendous increase of cost despite huge technological advances and cost reductions in electronics. Your use of the J-10 vs. FC-1 example is way off because both are actually comparable in technological levels.
Why do you think FDL was selected over LVT initially? Because of early availability and lower cost. The main difference was lower power and no TACAN and voice capability. Cost is even a factor when the capability gap isn't great, I don't know how you could think datalink with unsecured 600 bps, 100km range is no different in cost and complexity compare to a highly jam-resistant Ku-band datalink with 500km range.
Excuse me, you think Ku band datalink is jam proof? I don't know why you think that a 500km datalink is not worth it for an upgraded J-7.
Who said these techniques are "exotic"? The basic theories have all been there for a long time. The challenge has always been implementation in cost-effective ways.
It's always about the details. Spread spectrum was first developed by the military, but now expands into commercial sector. But that doesn't change the cost and capability tradeoff.
Wrong. It does. Spread spectrum is now in every cheap phone. Because it has spread to the commercial sector, these technologies have become far more cost effective, if not even superior in performance. The internet was used to be the military. Now it has greatly surpassed any military network by a magnitude.
I can quite see you really have no understanding of the electronics industry.
For example, you could use computational techniques against narrowband jammers or antenna based techniques against wideband jammer. Some techniques might handle both but could not handle multiple jammers in multiple locations. You might have to use a combination of several different ones, but those would increase complexity and cost.
And how much cost does it entail? The question and which you keep on skirting and avoiding to confront directly, is datalinks a cost effective upgrade on J-7 aircraft? Understand that computational power used in microprocessors and digital signal processors have increased
exponentially in just a decade, doubling every two years or so.
Range is never the only factor in missile effectiveness, but it does matter. If you find enemy at 25km and your AAM is only 16km, you wouldn't be so happy if your enemy finds you at 20km and has 20km AAM.
If both sides have BVR missiles, then firing at each other could also force the enemy to dodge. The enemy could no longer easily setup his position for another missile or gun kill. That's the difference.
That's understood. But I always explained to you that the J-7s will have to operate in a context with other different aircraft with BVR capability. The J-8II on the other hand, cannot utilize the target's loss of energy trying to evade BVR attack.
I don't think J-8s have to always run away, it all depends on the intercept condition and enemy aircraft.
Simply by turning the J-8II would lose a lot of energy and lift. It would literally put itself on the same position its evading target would be in. Providing its intercept position, it may have an opportunity to fire another missile, or not.
JJ-7 is useful only if you plan to maintain a large J-7 fleet. It's an 20 year old design.
Age has nothing to do with it. One can say that a good design is nearly timeless. 20 year old designs include F-16s, F-15s and Su-27s nowadays. How old is the B737 design by the way.
LIFT are used to teach pilots how to handle high performance aircrafts in handling and avionics. If you have a Quadruplex digital FBW flight control and better fuel efficiency, then LIFT is definitely better than J-7.
Which is also true. However, a J-7 based trainer is still superior to the LIFT in terms of raw performance such as turn rates, speed and climb. And at least the J-7 can still be used as fighter trainers. You can't see the same with the J-8II.
The fundamental difference is really that you think J-7s are useful, and I think they are extra baggage. For true force transformation, you must be willing to make decisions that make sense in the long run. Although there are sunk costs in J-7/J-8 assembly line and avionics upgrades could appear to be cheap, ultimately spending anymore on them are wastes. It's a circular strategy. PLAAF produce new J-7s or new J-8s, then argue there are more service life in them therefore limited upgrades are useful.
I say let the backup aircrafts stay backup, and use whatever money on upgrades for newer PLAAF aircrafts and projects.
I don't disagree with that. PLAAF does produce new J-7s and new J-8s just to keep the production line open, even for possible exports. J-10 and J-11 conversions are happening faster than J-7G or J-8F, of which there is only one documented regiment conversion each, although it does not discount there may be other conversions out there. The number of Flankers in the PLAAF actually matches that of the number of J-7E/Gs. Earlier J-7s like J-7Bs, J-7Cs and J-7Ds are slated for category B units or are just now in reserve. The number of operational J-8IIs are also comparable to the Flankers.
Here is one thing I quite disagree with you. This is the fundamental notion of electronics as upgrade and maintenance. Whatever equipment is there on the J-7s and J-8IIs would eventually break down and fail. However, production lines are only geared to produce the latest devices. You simply cannot replace old with old because old isn't produced anymore. If really are in IT, you would know that companies like IBM charge a lot more for service contracts dealing with outdated computers and equipments, and they do this not because they want to force you to upgrade. In time, maintaining older equipment will cost you much more than new ones.
You simply have to replace whatever electronics they have on the older planes with ones of the same modernity in technology as you have in your latest models. That is simple practicality. And it is a no choice option. The cost of the new much more sophisticated model, like the datalink, is actually lower than the old one. This HAS NOTHING to do with performance. This comes from production realities. It actually costs you more to recreate obsolescence just for compatibility purposes.
At the same time, this component, because it now has to be produced in a greater number, will have its costs further reduced. The more upgrades you do, the lower its costs become. And this cost reduction feeds itself.
You truly have no understanding what "complexity and cost" means, but attribute that as a factor of capability. Simple minded logic with no understanding of production realities. A Pentium 4 is exponentially much more complex than a CMOS 6502C processor. But if I were to restart a production line just to produce the CMOS 6502C, the resulting cost would exceed that of the Pentium 4. At the same time you seemed to discount that that such upgrades could tremendously improve the tactical situation in utilizing the older aircraft in a matter of life and death speaking.
