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

cabbageman · Apr 28, 2006

Wang Wei was born in 1968, so in 1998 he was 30 years old. Read the entire paragraph:
在海军航空兵某部迎接新飞行员的联欢会上，初来乍到的王伟自告奋勇地站起来，指挥大家唱出了心中的壮志豪情。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。
"new" as in "just got here". There is no way to tell if those pilots were young or old. More importantly, they were picked because of top performance. Wang Wei "applied" for new aircraft conversion, just as Wang Shao Hua had to pass tests.

Doesn't matter if PLA picked a unit for new aircraft conversion, the pilots still have to have top performance and test for it. There is no free pass for young pilots because they are young. List all the unit names you want, it says nothing about young pilots or third grade pilots allowed for J-11 / J-10 conversion only because they are in the same unit.

crobato said:
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?

That was my point. Only new ones have those, in general missiles are not the same as aircrafts. The scaled down MIDS is just that, the scale down.

crobato said:
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.

Not just jam proof but all performance requirements. Electronics and technology advancement reduce cost and increase availability, but it doesn't change the performance / cost tradeoff and inherent constraints. A computer with 3 GHz Pentium 4 processor, 1 GB RAM, and 100 GB Hard dirive is affordable by families now, this is very impressive consider the old 16 bit computer that didn't even have a hard drive. But how come not everyone has a Supercomputer at home?

crobato said:
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.

"Jam-resistant" is an adjective for datalink not for ku band, although ku band is better than some other band. "Jam-resistant" also isn't "jam proof".

You should not pick one parameter and make decisions individually. Doing things that way, you would end up with almost everything. Always remember resource and tradeoff.

crobato said:
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.

Radars are available in police cars, why doesn't every air force have AESA radars on all fighters? Bomb making has spread to terrorist organization, how come not everyone has AMSTE JDAM? Details, cost/capability tradeoff, and resource constraint matters.

crobato said:
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.

You know why FDL is cheaper than LVT? Partly because of complexity. FDL is only for one platform F-15, LVT needs to consider more than 10 different platforms.

When you are making a decision for performance and cost tradeoff for a project which must be finished soon, you don't use future possibility to say cost doesn't matter because everything will be cheaper later.

AAM seekers are so much more sophisticated than the first generation seekers. But giving the major technology advances, AAM seekers still aren't free. Why? Because technology improvement doesn't happen in vacuum, everything else improves as well. AAMs today are much deadlier than AIM-9B, but they also must deal with better countermeasures and better enemy aircrafts.

NATO is still committed in multi-platform LVT, certainly PLAAF could do the same for J-7 and incorporated it for additional upfront and maintenance cost. But ultimately it goes back to the same question, is J-7 worth it?

crobato said:
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.

J-8 could also operate with other aircrafts like J-10.

Actually this raises interesting questions. Is J-7's EM performance better than J-8? J-7 obviously has better turn rates and such. However, J-8 has higher thrust to weight ratio and lower wing loading if my calculation is correct.

crobato said:
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.

When JJ-7 was in development, did PLAAF consider how JJ-7 could help pilots’ transition to J-10/J-11? If a trainer was designed 10 years ago for PLAAF, then it wouldn't matter. That's not the situation here.

crobato said:
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.

For Aggressor trainings, J-7 is still useful. That however doesn't justify maintaining a large fleet of it.

crobato said:
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.

This is assuming you want to keep old aircrafts in service in the first place, therefore MLU should include more. My choice option is to get rid of them, not picking which upgrade options would be the best.

It's true higher production lower the average cost per unit, but you are still spending more money overall. If I buy one bottle of soda it costs one dollar, if I buy a dozen it costs 11 dollars or 0.9 per bottle, if I buy 1000 bottles I could get special 15% discount and get 0.85 per bottle. So should I always buy 1000 coco-cola per purchase? If I don't drink myself to death with coke, spending 850 dollars doesn't make the 0.85 cheaper average unit cost great.

You also forget the additional research, testing, and maintenance cost incurred by including J-7. This is already explained in LVT vs FDL.

crobato said:
PLAAF have had GCI to fighter datalinks for decades, absorbing more in the seventies and even in the eighties. The J-8IIs didn't have datalinks recently, they have had GCI-fighter datalinks the whole time.

How many war and air combat experience US and China have?

“New datalink” for J-8, not the old ones.

crobato said:
And while it is true that the USA has decades of electronic warfare experience that does not matter at all in the process of technological acquisition. That's like saying an engineer in his sixties is better than an engineer in his twenties because of the decades of experience he has. It is the availment of technologies that matters, not the cumulation of experience. One can acquire the same knowhow through espionage

So how come China doesn’t skip making J-10 now and produce F-22A equivalent fighter using espionage knowledge? Not that simple.

War experience does matter. Weapons are tested in real combats and the result would improve the post war research. The victor would not publish all of the detailed findings from the war experience to the world. You could get indirect knowledge, but that’s not substitute for classified materials and first hand experience.

You could bet that a 60 year old senior engineer has a lot of tricks up his sleeve that new hot shots students don’t know about, simply from practical experiences and the lesson-learned. This is why knowledge management is such a hot topic in the industry. In 1940, you have 60 year old Albert Einstein and a 20 year old hot shot physics student, who is better? Experience doesn’t decide everything alone. Talent doesn’t decide everything alone. However if you have both talent and experience, that says something. US isn’t some good for nothing old fart waiting for retirement in your analogy, it still has both the experience and the technology edge.

It is not impossible to surpass US, no empires are everlasting. But Rome isn’t built in one day.

Sea Dog · Apr 28, 2006

crobato said:
I have to disagree with you on that. Major.

Tell that to the Japanese, Taiwanese and the Koreans, who not only reverse engineered technologies that originated to the West, but mastered them to a level that the West no longer competes with them effectively on these areas.

There is not one instance in the military realm where this is true. If you say cellphones, camcorders, TV's, DVD Players, etc. I would say yes. But we're talking military applications here. I'm sorry, but designing an F-22, B-2, Battle management components and software, datalinks, cruise missiles and support hardware, and network surveillance systems are much more complex than designing, copying, or building cellphones and cameras by a factor of 1000 or more. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all still behind in military technologies despite heavy U.S. support.

And BTW, alot of the research in these civil use technologies is still being done and financed in the West.

The West no longer produces some of these gadgets because the costs of production are lower abroad, and U.S. businesses want to keep costs low for the American consumer market. Americans want these things at low prices also. They do this for economic reasons...not because of inability.

Totoro said:
But those slightly behind the curve will not need to spend the same amount of time or money to fully grasp the tech at issue. Only difference is - they will grasp it later, be that 6 months later or 6 years later or 60 years later. The later they do grasp it, easier and cheaper and quicker it will be for them.

Of course the abovementioned process would be impossible if countries were fortresses that did not communicate or share knowledge with one another but as globalization is nicely showing - that is not the case. Everything gets known, everythign leaks, everything can be copied and studied (given enough time and effort).

But by the time they get it, the primary sources have gone beyond that level of technology. There is a historical precedent for this. J-10 is one such instance. While J-10 looks to be an impressive tactical fighter, if it is at the level of technology as an F-16 Block 30, that's late 80's technology. Even at Block 50 level, that's early 90's technology. Most sources say it's closer to Block 30 equivalent though. It's nothing new. And it's a clear example of how China will always play "catch-up" due to their reliance on second-hand technologies or relying on the absorb method of development. Plus, in the long run, they will be at a bottleneck technologically due to the fact that they haven't learned anything from the developmental R & D phase. Meanwhile, Western counterparts are working and researching on F-22, Rafale, and Typhoon. All of these are 21st Century fighters built with new and innovative technologies. Not alot of copying or reverse engineering going on here. And they will get the benefit of experience through internal development.

Totoro said:
And truth is - everyone copies. And steals. and reverse engineers. competing companies in US too. its called industrial espionage. No matter how good your own research is, you will always want to keep your eye on the competition and know where they're at. If that means stealing their product for which you fear is superior to yours - so be it.

Very cynical. Maybe true to a certain degree, but very cynical. Actually, the U.S. didn't copy AEGIS from anyone. The U.S. didn't copy B-2/F-22 designs and technologies from anyone. The U.S. didn't copy adaptive radar mode control in PAR systems from anyone. The Scandinavians didn't copy stealth hull form research from anyone. The Europeans didn't copy the Omni-mode missile AAW concept built into the Type 45 DDG from anyone. The Russians didn't copy or reverse engineer the Moskit missile. The Russians designed the Flankers from the ground up without reliance on other sources for it's technologies. Do you see a trend? And these nations all got the benefits of developmental experience that go into this process. If there were technological difficulties, they learned from the experience and they won't have to relearn this stuff down the road. Those that rely on copying/Reverse-engineering, will not get this benefit. It could prove costly for them.

Like I said, reverse engineering will lead to stagnation in military developments. This is due to a lack of sole internal development. Sure they designed J-10, but it's too similar to Lavi designs and others not to have benefited from them. Don't get me wrong here. J-10 is impressive, yes. But definitely not a new technological breakthrough.

Totoro said:
But as china gets very close to leading adge, the process will slow down. And one day china may get to parity level and then it will spend just as much money on improving its tech as US. Then it'll be all about economies, whether they can sustain a vast and expensive R&D sector. (of course im talking about government funded R&D. There will always be spillover tech from commercial sector as well but that too is in a way related to strength of economy)

I agree with you totally here. But without the technological infrastructure built through internal R & D, and the experience and accrued data as the foundation, it won't do much good. That's why technological development through copy/reverse engineering in and of itself is a dead end at some point.

MIGleader · Apr 28, 2006

But by the time they get it, the primary sources have gone beyond that level of technology. There is a historical precedent for this. J-10 is one such instance. While J-10 looks to be an impressive tactical fighter, if it is at the level of technology as an F-16 Block 30, that's late 80's technology. Even at Block 50 level, that's early 90's technology. Most sources say it's closer to Block 30 equivalent though. It's nothing new. And it's a clear example of how China will always play "catch-up" due to their reliance on second-hand technologies or relying on the absorb method of development. Plus, in the long run, they will be at a bottleneck technologically due to the fact that they haven't learned anything from the developmental R & D phase. Meanwhile, Western counterparts are working and researching on F-22, Rafale, and Typhoon. All of these are 21st Century fighters built with new and innovative technologies. Not alot of copying or reverse engineering going on here. And they will get the benefit of experience through internal development.

depends on who you ask. Personally, while I feel the j-10s overal abilities falls close to the abilities of the f-16 block 50 it posseses certain abilities that allow it to compete with a modern f-18 e/f. With before-end-of decade upgrades, it should be nearing eurofighter.

why are you assuming china isnt learning anything from R&D? Of course it is. Designing the j-10 wasnt as easy as copying all of the lavis designs and making a plane. Why do you think the process took 15 years?

china is "jumping". Euro hopes to use JSF as its future mainstay fighter. Thus, it is not researching a full stealth aircraft, while Chian is very much actively persuing such a project. When the j-xx comes out in around 2015, Chia will be ahead of europe.

Schumacher · Apr 28, 2006

Sea Dog said:
There is not one instance in the military realm where this is true. If you say cellphones, camcorders, TV's, DVD Players, etc. I would say yes. But we're talking military applications here. I'm sorry, but designing an F-22, B-2, Battle management components and software, datalinks, cruise missiles and support hardware, and network surveillance systems are much more complex than designing, copying, or building cellphones and cameras by a factor of 1000 or more. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all still behind in military technologies despite heavy U.S. support.

And BTW, alot of the research in these civil use technologies is still being done and financed in the West. The West no longer produces some of these gadgets because the costs of production are lower abroad, and U.S. businesses want to keep costs low for the American consumer market. Americans want these things at low prices also. They do this for economic reasons...not because of inability...........

Too simplistic a view. Why Jpn, SK & TW seem to be ahead in consumer tech but lag far behind the US in military tech has much more to with politics than pure tech capability. The US used its political leverage to pressure those 3 from working on military projects of strategic significance like aviation & nuclear etc. U might say US has earned those political rights after WW2 & Korea war but that's not the point.
If SK & Jpn had gone flat out to work to military R&D, even after the wars, without any political considerations, they'd be much closer to US today or even ahead in some areas.

Ur views that US is behind in consumer tech only coz of low cost & not capability is not entirely true either. Just ask Detroit in their battle with the Japanese & Koreans.....

Roger604 · Apr 28, 2006

cabbageman said:
Not just jam proof but all performance requirements. Electronics and technology advancement reduce cost and increase availability, but it doesn't change the performance / cost tradeoff and inherent constraints. A computer with 3 GHz Pentium 4 processor, 1 GB RAM, and 100 GB Hard dirive is affordable by families now, this is very impressive consider the old 16 bit computer that didn't even have a hard drive. But how come not everyone has a Supercomputer at home?

Why do you think jam-resistance feature is something that China cannot afford?

And if China can afford it, why do you think the upgrade money is poorly spent on J-7?

You simply haven't given any specific reason aside from spouting common sense allocation anecdotes. Why is the combat improvement of J-7's with upgraded avionics not worth the price??

Unless you mean to say that jam-resistance is X generation technology.... while China is so far behind that they need to advance a couple more generations before even considering X generation technology.

:roll:

cabbageman said:
So how come China doesn’t skip making J-10 now and produce F-22A equivalent fighter using espionage knowledge? Not that simple.

I don't see how this is relevant. Everybody knows that US is ahead. But then, everybody also knows that China can do in, say 5 years, what the US took 10 years to do because it's the "latecomer/copier". Finally, everybody knows that as China gets closer to the US, it's development is going to slow down.

Going on and on about how the US "is still ahead!" and "DIY is better than copying" is not going to change that!!!

Just because I didn't discover every single scientific mathematical theorem/theory from the dawn of time myself does not mean that I cannot apply them. Ditto for China: just because it didn't go through the technology tree by itself doesn't mean it doesn't THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND the technology. When China and US reaches approximate technological parity, China won't be "starting from scratch".

isthvan · Apr 28, 2006

MIGleader said:
depends on who you ask. Personally, while I feel the j-10s overal abilities falls close to the abilities of the f-16 block 50 it posseses certain abilities that allow it to compete with a modern f-18 e/f. With before-end-of decade upgrades, it should be nearing eurofighter.

why are you assuming china isnt learning anything from R&D? Of course it is. Designing the j-10 wasnt as easy as copying all of the lavis designs and making a plane. Why do you think the process took 15 years?

china is "jumping". Euro hopes to use JSF as its future mainstay fighter. Thus, it is not researching a full stealth aircraft, while Chian is very much actively persuing such a project. When the j-xx comes out in around 2015, Chia will be ahead of europe.

Yes j-10 is impressive design but think about its development... Process took 15 years because development started on Israeli design and supposed to have western tech, then west imposed military sanctions and China had to ask Russia for help to finish development... So R&D faze of project is made with help from Russia and Israel... Chinese engineers learned allot, but did they develop crucial components on there one? No... They just modified Israeli design (whit a lot of help from Russia) to accommodate Russian engine and domestic radar (based on US AN/APG-66 tech)...
And do not forget that Europeans contributed to JSFs development, they are not just buying it... Europe is working on stealth technologies for last 20 years…
Point is that when you are copying someone’s design you just know how he made that product, but you lack knowledge why he did it that way… For example you do not know if other ways were to complex, to expensive, did they lack hi-tech materials to do it smaller or les complex… You can considerable improve design you are copying but you lack basic know-how for further development… Ask any engineer and he will give you same answer…

Sea Dog · Apr 28, 2006

Schumacher said:
If SK & Jpn had gone flat out to work to military R&D, even after the wars, without any political considerations, they'd be much closer to US today or even ahead in some areas.

Pure speculation. But your point is valid. The US has a huge technological infrastructure based on decades worth of data and experience. If these countries did this, perhaps they would be closer. But you can't ignore the amount of money and the amount of resources the USA can put into R & D compared to these nations.

Schumacher said:
Ur views that US is behind in consumer tech only coz of low cost & not capability is not entirely true either. Just ask Detroit in their battle with the Japanese & Koreans.....

Detroits case is due to the fact that they're being smothered by Unions. Basically they're unable to make enough of a profit while still meeting the unions demands. If the US put tariffs on imported goods like other countries did for their imports, and if union demands are curtailed, this situation would change dramatically. All I can say is that political will to do these things is rising in the USA.

Roger604" said:
Just because I didn't discover every single scientific mathematical theorem/theory from the dawn of time myself does not mean that I cannot apply them. Ditto for China: just because it didn't go through the technology tree by itself doesn't mean it doesn't THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND the technology. When China and US reaches approximate technological parity, China won't be "starting from scratch".

Your first point here is true Roger. But I don't think you understand what I'm saying. From an engineering standpoint, you would have a much more difficult time proceeding on a line of technological development if your development comes primarily from other sources. You just won't have the same understanding of the technology (strengths, weaknesses, ability to modify) as if you spent the time researching it and building the foundations yourself. Just ain't gonna happen. And there is no precedent to prove your assertions. That's why I don't see China reaching technological parity at all. i.e. If you try and modify or build something based on advanced concepts of some of this type of technology, there could be problems you face that are unseen, that the developers may have encountered and corrected that you just haven't seen or experienced. There is a good chance you may face a brick wall. Russia experienced this in a very expensive way with their Skywatch.

tomcat12 · Apr 29, 2006

Ender Wiggin said:
Wha!? Assuming that there is a limited war between the PRC and the USA then why wouldn't the Second Artillery knock out the GPS systems? Its a military target retallitating with nukes is... insane is the only word I can think of.

Using nukes on a 6th of the world's population for disabling 30,000,000$ of hardware is not something to go nuclear over. Besides China can send its ICBM's and millions of Americans will die.

Next, I believe the J-10/11 is meant to take on F-14-18's??

The thing about ICBM that you must understand is there a relatively, compared to the distance to the nearest american city. IF even China has any ICBMs and launched them toward the west. NATO and the United States would destry the ICBM (by using the same way as they did the russians) and bomb the living daylights out of China from both sides! those are my two cents

tomcat12 said:
The thing about ICBM that you must understand is there a relatively, compared to the distance to the nearest american city. IF even China has any ICBMs and launched them toward the west. NATO and the United States would destry the ICBM (by using the same way as they did the russians) and bomb the living daylights out of China from both sides! those are my two cents

Sory for the spelling i was in a hurry!

Sea Dog · Apr 29, 2006

tomcat12 said:
The thing about ICBM that you must understand is there a relatively, compared to the distance to the nearest american city. IF even China has any ICBMs and launched them toward the west. NATO and the United States would destry the ICBM (by using the same way as they did the russians) and bomb the living daylights out of China from both sides! those are my two cents

Sory for the spelling i was in a hurry!

Do we really have to start this back up??? Nukes again??? Why???? Oh the Humanity!!! This has been done to death on many different threads.

cabbageman · Apr 29, 2006

Roger604 said:
You simply haven't given any specific reason aside from spouting common sense allocation anecdotes. Why is the combat improvement of J-7's with upgraded avionics not worth the price??

What is your "specific" reason that J-7 would be great with datalink? Where are the detail air combat effectiveness and cost tradeoff figures? This is a public forum, anything people say will never be "specific" enough without the classified materials.

I already stated my reasons clearly enough. J-7 lacks BVR weapons, lacks range, lacks survivability in modern combat, and lacks superior situational awareness. Datalink could somewhat improve the last one marginally, but will never change the first two. Majority of older J-7s are reaching the end of the service life. J-7s don't have any chance against future enemy aircrafts.

You don't even need sophisticated war games. Sit down and use exchange rates and attrition rates for simple calculation, and you would see what kind of impact inferior aircrafts could have on the force ratio. That doesn't even include soft factors like morale and planning. Quantity makes up for quality in theory, but it isn't as proportional as most people think. It is not realistic to follow US style force structure, but the time has come for PLAAF to adjust its traditional ways. J-7s have to go, the sooner the better. I favor J-8 over J-7, but the truth is J-8s have to go as well.

Roger604 said:
I don't see how this is relevant. Everybody knows that US is ahead. But then, everybody also knows that China can do in, say 5 years, what the US took 10 years to do because it's the "latecomer/copier". Finally, everybody knows that as China gets closer to the US, it's development is going to slow down.

If you know US is ahead, why are you insisting China must have same level of datalink technology without evidence?

All those you said don't change the reality of no perfect shortcuts.

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

cabbageman

New Member

Sea Dog

Junior Member

MIGleader

Banned Idiot

Schumacher

Senior Member

Roger604

Senior Member

isthvan

Tailgunner

Sea Dog

Junior Member

tomcat12

Just Hatched

Sea Dog

Junior Member

cabbageman

New Member