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

Totoro said:

Of course replacing old fighters is a must. Even 100 j10 for 500 j7 is a great deal. But when we're talking bout simply 500 j7s or no j7s, their mere presence in the battlefield, the deterrance they offer, however small it is compared to modern planes, outweights the cost of their maintenance. While china can afford them and while they can fly - it's good to keep them. When they get too old to go on flying without major and costly maintenance work - then you get rid of them. A fair number of those j7s and j8s are still relatively young with decent airframes. I do not see china getting rid of those planes before, say, 2015. And, actually, i see j8s going first, rather than latest versions of j7s - as they're cheaper to maintain and offer greater value for money if equipped with datalinks.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it will probably be the other way around. CAC needs to shut down its J-7 production line soon and replace it with JF-17 production line, which will become the new export production line I guess. This should happen as soon as all the current plaaf and export orders are fulfilled (probably by 2007?) On the other hand, J-8 production line is going to keep on going for a while, because J-11B is still under going test right now as shown in that recent photo with WZ-10. Even when it gets certified, it might take a while longer for it to reach high production level. It's hard to imagine SAC just sitting around and producing nothing while CAC is pumping J-10s off the production lines.

Honestly there's no real way to know how a J-10 would do against an F-22 or F-35. If a J-10 is not going straight at it, chances are anything that appears as the size of a big bird going over the speed of sound 10 miles high in the aair is just a tad suspicious. That's the real problem. If a pilot can detect an aircraft then there will be telltale signs. The question comes to whether or not pilots in the PLAAF will be able to recognize this.

I would say the bigger problem is getting an sd-10 to lock on to something with an rcs the size of a bird. Perhaps the Amr-1 based seeker on the missle might have been designed with this in mind, perhaps not.

Since the production line on the J-7 was never closed, I would think there would be over 300 J-7E/G by now, the 'Gs adding over the 250-260 J-7Es over the 300 mark. There should be a low rate production just to keep the production line open but this rate does not change if there is an export order. Instead, if I am building 30 planes each for example, and someone made an order for 24, that means the PLAAF isn't getting 30 planes but only 6planes, and the export customer gets 24.

There is probably several hundred J-7Bs and variations like the J-7H around. The J-7H is the J-7B upgraded with the J-7E's avionics and radar, and can fire the PL-8 missile. Nonetheless, the vast majority of these planes, over 20 years old and more now, are facing mass retirement in the years to come; much of the J-6s have already been retired, with only JJ-6s trainers left. It is hard to say how many PLAAF divisions are left but it looks like due to the massive retirements, the PLAAF is undergoing tremendous shrinkage.

Formation isn't useless, not for non-stealth fighters anyway. There isn’t any superior formation that could magically win the engagement for you, but if you have poor formation it will certainly decease the chance of survival.

AIM-9X is now in full rate production with F-15C/D and F/A-18C/D getting upgrade first. Super Hornet's APG-79 AESA becomes operational this year with the Block 2. JHMCS upgrade is also included in the same block, so AIM-9X wouldn't be too far behind either.

BVR weapons aren't sure-kills, but still extremely deadly if combined with stealth and supermanuverability. Many WVR missile kills were the direct result of enemy aircrafts ended up in inferior position from dodging BVR missiles.

All the theories of making J-7 useful sounds nice. But in reality any money spent on J-7s is better spent elsewhere. PLAAF has a large fleet. New PLA aircrafts get priority for datalink upgrade, not J-7. If something were there, certainly you would use it. But if it requires even more resources to become truly useful, then trade-off cannot be ignored.

Aggressor pilots in J-7s are exceptions, not norm. These people develop new tactics and simulate enemy aircrafts and tactics to train others. I am talking about the regular J-7s pilots, those aren't special grade pilots.

Given PLA's air defense, US will rely more on Stealth platforms like B-2 and dedicated attack UCAV in the future, not regular strike aircrafts. J-7 will engage the escorting air superiority fighters, not fighters with air to ground ordnance.

If J-8 carries high offboresight missiles, I'd definitely take that over J-7, especially in interceptor role.

Given PLA's air defense, US will rely more on Stealth platforms like B-2 and dedicated attack UCAV in the future, not regular strike aircrafts. J-7 will engage the escorting air superiority fighters, not fighters with air to ground ordnance.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. Category A fighters would have engaged fighter escorts first, if not engaged with SAMs. J-7s being the second line of defense, is more likely to engage what is left, as well as fighters with air to ground ordinance.

Aggressor pilots in J-7s are exceptions, not norm. These people develop new tactics and simulate enemy aircrafts and tactics to train others. I am talking about the regular J-7s pilots, those aren't special grade pilots.

Click to expand...

J-7 regiments are picked for J-10 and J-11 conversions. That says a lot about their quality. One thing about the J-7 pilot over the J-8 pilot is that the J-7 pilot is probably more practiced in ACM and dogfights, as well as flying at low altitudes. Nature of the aircraft tends to force certain styles of fighting.

All the theories of making J-7 useful sounds nice. But in reality any money spent on J-7s is better spent elsewhere. PLAAF has a large fleet. New PLA aircrafts get priority for datalink upgrade, not J-7. If something were there, certainly you would use it. But if it requires even more resources to become truly useful, then trade-off cannot be ignored.

Click to expand...

Datalink upgrades are very cheap. For the cost of a single J-10, how many J-7s can you upgrade with new avionics?

If J-8 carries high offboresight missiles, I'd definitely take that over J-7, especially in interceptor role.

Click to expand...

Done so already. But when combined with radar reduction coatings, how much more is the J-8II radar-visible over the J-7? The J-8II maybe faster, has the better radar and the superior missile (PL-12), but the J-7 is much more survivable, having much smaller radar signature and superior agility.

The J-8 vs J-7 debate goes on.

Given PLA's air defense, US will rely more on Stealth platforms like B-2 and dedicated attack UCAV in the future, not regular strike aircrafts.

Click to expand...

By the time the USAF relies mostly on dedicated attack UCAV, J-7s are long retired.

I would expect that the J-7E's will have some upgrades, while J-7Gs are built brand new with them. J-7B/H types will be phased into retirement. Among J-8s, the J-8Es and longer flight hour J-8Bs will be headed into retirement. The overall numbers of J-7s and J-8s will dwindle in the coming years.

crobato said:

I would expect that the J-7E's will have some upgrades, while J-7Gs are built brand new with them. J-7B/H types will be phased into retirement. Among J-8s, the J-8Es and longer flight hour J-8Bs will be headed into retirement. The overall numbers of J-7s and J-8s will dwindle in the coming years.

Click to expand...

yeah, I'm wondering if they are still bothering to upgrade the existing J-7s or they are just going to let go of everything. Either way, it's a good thing pla is cutting regiments instead of trying to keep that 4000 aircraft air force. J-7s should make for better drones than J-6s.

btw, I posted some pictures of the IRST/passive detector developed by Changhong, any thoughts? I'm guessing China only got the OLS-31E, because Changhong claims that its irst is better than su-27's irst.

It is hard to say how good the Changhong version is, there is self advertisement is involved. Perhaps the OLS-31E is used as a stopgap prior to the Changhong version getting ready to be accepted into service or ramped up in production. Getting Russian engines and OLS is an indication China does not want to wait or waste time waiting for domestic equivalents and would accept some degree of Russian components during transition. Shows you they're in a rush. We'll see if there will be more Russian component orders later in the year as the ordered stock dries up.

I don't think US will send any non-stealth manned platform into China for Strategic bombing and interdiction. USN will still use Hornet for maritime attack, but in that case J-7s will not have any local advantages.

With the exception of Aggressor and flying demonstration team, most J-7 pilots are either inexperienced or not as good as J-10/J-11 pilots. There is no cut-off point showing that all J-7 pilots suck and all J-10/J-11 pilots are great. But anyone knows that good pilots always get priority assignments in advanced units. PLAAF is no different than any other air forces. US Reserve/ANG F-16 pilots definitely cannot compare to USAF F-22A pilots.

Datalink aren't cheap at all, not for the good ones. In US, Link 16 terminal costs several millions on average, and the cost of several terminals could buy you an early block F-16C/D. I'll take the single new J-10 over the several J-7 with crappy datalink. More J-7s mean more personnel and logistic costs, in exchange for inferior minimal capability. No thanks.

J-8 has faster climb rate, faster top speed, higher operational ceiling, and greater range than J-7. All the ideal interceptor attributes combine with the first shoot BVR weapons, and new WVR missiles that compress J-7 agility advantage. I'll also take J-8 over J-7.

Aircrafts generally have 20 year life span, and some J-7s are brand new. The original J-UCAV was set for first flight this year, and becomes operational later next decade. Although J-UCAV was cancelled this year due to divergent USAF and USN requirements (USAF want bigger range and payload, USN want carrier compatibility), it now appears that USN will still go ahead with its efforts. Predator already used Hellfire in Afghan, attack UCAV isn't that far away.