PLAAF JZ8F first picture

Crobato matey, I was thinking more in terms of the Finback's ability to do the job when the poopoo starts flying, not just now or tomorrow, but 3 or 10 years down the line when it's still employed. The Finback is a cool plane with a certain coldwar appeal that makes it interesting, and it's cheap, but even with the new engines it's likely to be short ranged requiring external fuel to go the same as a J11 on internal. Recce isn't "non combat" either in my view.

JH-7 is another obvious candidate over the J-8 IMO.

The real future of recce is UAVs and I'm sure that the PLAAF know this.

3 to 10 years now, the speed posture isn't going to change, and unless you are in an active state of war, no one will really try to shoot you down either. The best they can do is intercept you and escort you out of their space. Unless you got aircraft that will supercruise (don't know if the F-35 itself can do that), it still won't be easy to catch one of these aircraft down low, and supercruising also eat up that much fuel. Unfortunately it does not turn out that turbofans are more efficient than turbojets in supersonic speeds. At some point, it is the turbojet that is *more efficient* at supersonic speeds.

At _supersonic speeds_, the same aircraft with the same TWR, one using a turbofan and another using a turbojet, the turbojet would use less fuel. The engine has a higher exit speed for the gases, which means it can attain the same thrust for a lower volume of air passing through the engine. Hence why fighter turbofans are low bypass.

The faster you go, the better that the bypass gets lower and lower (at the expense of fuel efficiency in subsonic speeds), till bypass becomes effectively zero, and with that, you get a turbojet. Turbofans use a fan stage to bypass some air over the engine core and into the exhaust. So long as the air bypassing the engine is much faster than the plane speed, this works relatively well. But as the plane speeds go faster and faster, this scheme begins to work less and less effectively, as the difference of the speed of the exhaust gases vs. the plane speed narrows. This is why as speeds go higher, its better to have more thrust through the engine rather than the bypass, finally reaching the point its better to have all of them.

In addition, at these speeds, the relative simplicity of the turbojets works to its advantage. The turbofan still has to drive that large fan, and that extra friction and rotating mass to deal with, so the turbofan incurs more parasitic losses. As turbofans need to work at much higher compression ratios, there is also greater risk of breaking down in supersonic flight.

Back in the sixties, jets with fairly low TWR with turbojets, were hitting Mach 2 to 2.5. Today you have to brute force a high TWR on a plane with turbofans to get up to those peak speeds.

The Flanker carries its own bag of problems as a recon plane. Things used to enhance maneuverbility, flaps, leading edge slats, LERXs, compound geometry on the wing edge, a longer wing span and a higher wing aspect, all add up to significant drag at supersonic speeds. Whereas the J-8II uses the classic sharp sweep delta wing with a hard forward edge. On a straight line, the J-8II should have less drag than a Flanker (but then so will a Starfighter or Mirage III).

Add the fact that our recce plane will be flying clean, while the intercepting plane would be flying with tanks and missiles, and you got the recipe for a clean run away.

The JH-7A isn't going to be any better than the J-8II for this role. Actually far worst. High plane weight, low TWR, turbofans, fixed inlets, compound geometry wings meant more for maneuverbility---variable camber slats, sawtooth edge, etc,. The latter stuff adds drag.

These principles wont change 5, 10, 15, 50 years from now. Maybe the plane will change, but not the concept---UCAV with sharp arrow-delta shaped wings with solid edges, powered by turbojets or ramjets, screaming over the airspace with a catch-me-if-you can flight path.

Cool analysis crobato. In fact hit-and-run seems ideal tactic for UCAV's, since the AI is simplified.

I was wondering why does maneuverability continue to be valued in aircraft, if they cannot out manuever missiles, and if new missiles can fire all aspect with no need to get on the target's tail? Does it have to do with bleeding the energy of the missile?


I like the finback too I'd be interested to see the next generation stealth fighter based on it, with more fuel volume and using future turbojets.

I learned this from playing flight sim actually, and there is no way to practice beating missiles LIVE, hehe. You have to put your plane in invincibility mode and let attackers have infinite missiles to shoot at you (LOMAC). There are ways to beat missiles, and some of the ways focus on maneuverbility. Just remember, in the Gulf War, there was one F-16 that had to evade at least six SAMs fired one after another. There was some tight flying but he made it.

First, once your RWR goes off, you need to verify if the missile is tracking you. A hard turn is the best way to let you know if the missile is following you. Then you can try chaff and flares and see if that would work. But you need to keep maneuvering anyway to so that you will know if the other missile has taken the decoy or not.

Another is to go into a beam maneuver and head straight into the ground. You pick up valuable speed along the way. When you pull up the missile may turn wider than you and hit the ground. Usually I discovered that when you're fighting in low altitudes, there is a greater chance of missiles turning wide and hitting the ground.

One way to make the missile travel longer, so it rans ouf fuel, and for that is it is not necessary to make it fly straight. So force it to maneuver, this will lengthen the missile flying time. Keep maneuvering long enough, and the total distance the missile travel will be long enough it will run out of fuel. This is where sustained turn rate helps, as well as rate of roll. Corkscrews and barrel rolls seems to help.

If you see the other guy fires his missile at long range, you can turn around and run fast as you can in the opposite direction. This forces the missile to pursue you from the tail end rather than head on, and thus it will fly longer than its expected range and it will drop. In the case of the J-8II, that's probably what I would do.

Another way is to fire a misisle right at the other guy, regardless of the chances the missile may hit. The other guy may respond by evading, and so he may lose his lock. Especially works if he is using SARH missile, and works against you if you are using SARH. Not a good tactic against ARH missiles, and if you shoot a missile at him, it may result in a mutual kill.

If you have all aspect missiles you have no need to get into the tail. But you still get the best chance if you lock on to the tail because of the heat from the tail. With HMS and WOBS missile, you just use your eyes to lock on to the target even without going into his tail. But always remember this, your missile has the best chance of killing the target if you make it fly the shortest and straightest path.

What I came across several times is to "fight missiles with aspect". You try to keep the missile at your three or nine o'clock position, therefore forcing it constantly to change direction, wich bleeds of energy. That of course requieres you to change direction as well, but if you do so in wide turns, you can retain most of your energy.
If you drop down low, besides speeding up you also force the missile to move at a lower altitude through thicker air, therefore decreasing it's speed and range.
Another thing is to release chaff/flare and immediatly fly a hard turn and hope you can breake the lock and the missile picks up your decoy.

I have similar feeling from playing Falcon4 1.08 back in the day--fight with aspect. Each time you reverse aspect the missile wastes the previous energy it invested in the intercept course (since you just gave it a new one). Your fighter can recover the energy quickly with your turbofans, but the missile cannot (it's coasting on inertia after first 15 seconds or so). As missile slows it cannot pull as many g's.

However in Falcon 4 I can often out maneuver the aim-9m at the last moment even when it is at high speed (pulling more g's than me). I wonder if the game is modeling some kind of sensor/control surface delay in the missile.

I haven't tried ground diving but it seems very dangerous!

I bought Allied Force but haven't tried it yet. I'd be interested to go up against aim-9x if that's in the game.

The more I look at the J8F the more I think this is PLAAF's answer to ROCAF's Mirage 2000. If the F's radar is anywhere close in capabilities compare to the Thomson RDY, then PLAAF has a winner on her hands. Onething I do not understand is why ROC ordered a lot more two seater Mirage 2000s as compared to single seaters? The M2000 is kind short leged and two seater surely has even less fuel and heavier as well. Anyone know the reason behind this?
Now back to this JZ8F, it looks like there are at least two kinds of sensors under her belly, one for sure is a camera( what kind camera, maybe many digital camera sensors to make one large panorama digi camera?), the other? Maybe you guys can take a wild guess. My guess it is a device for collecting radar signature and location.

Isn't Archer very hard to outmaneuver in Falcon 4?

Anyway, hard turn + chaff+decoys gets into a problem if the enemy fired a second missile some seconds after the first one. If you run out of energy making that hard turn, the second missile might get you. In Lomac, while the F-15's warning systems is better, that of the Su-27 isn't as good, and the warning systems is more generalized or less precise but I only play the Su-27 frankly. To give me better whereabouts and where the missile is, I "cheat" by going into external padlock view (3rd person view) and control the aircraft from the outside.

Anyway, I don't know if flight sims simulate doppler notch but I have yet to see any. Doppler notch is caused by turning in such a way that the target is moving perpendicular to the radar, causing zero doppler shift, and thus may fall out of lock. You do this exactly by keeping the active guided missile 3 to 9'oclock of your position, which by the way, is already the same method to bleed speed. Against SARH, it is the launching aircraft that you keep at 3 to 9 oclock position instead. Against SAMs, it is the radar station on the ground that you keep your aspect.

Anyway, going back to the J-8F, not only does the J-8F lack maneuverbility, I don't know if the J-8F has same missile warning systems as the J-10, JF-17 and J-11B. I kind of doubt it has, since I have yet to see it on the tail. I don't see it on the J-7G either.

On the ROCAF Mirage 2000s, I don't recall the ROCAF ordering that much. They ordered 48 single seaters and 12 double seaters. 1 of the single seaters and 2 of the double seaters have since attrited.

I don't know anything about the capabilities of the J-8F radar. It appeared to have started with Type 1471 (tracking at 75km, 10 targets on TWS, 2 targets engaged), then moved on to the Type 1492, which can be regarded as a second generation slotted planar for the Chinese and has PL-12 capability. Suffice to say, on the second, I kind of expect the radar to be close to the J-10's. On the basis of that alone, this makes the J-8F potent, given the PL-12 capability. But not only will these systems be used on brand new J-8F, but also in upgrrading J-8D. There is a picture of J-8Ds from the 29th Division being upgraded with the new radar.

For a total orbat, we know as confirmed by photograph, that 1 regiment of the 1st and the 21st Division has the J-8F. Each regiment is around 30 to 40 aircraft. The reports I got claim that a regiment each of the 2nd, 3rd and 37th have also upgraded to the J-8F. Then you have the planes of the 29th Division also upgraded. There are around at least six to eight divisions of J-8D out there that are open to avionics upgrade in addition to the 29th. The 21st and the 26th Division I believe are made entirely of J-8IIs in all three divisions. All the J-8Ds should be considered candidates for the upgrade. J-8Bs and J-8B block 2s are regarded as candidates for retirement, and either they will get J-8F brand new or move to another plane type.

If there is a second sensor, my guess is that it is the same as yours, for radar signature collection and location. These aircraft will attempt to buzz SAM defense sites to try to get them to activate.

Hehe it isn't so much cheating really. I hear the 2D screen even gives real life pilots difficulty. Windows has good multiple monitor support though, and I'd love to see the next combatsim use them. I have 3 monitors and I have used them with MS Flight simulator. It sure makes landings a lot better. Would be even better if my monitors matched!

Can't quite understand why lack of doppler shift would pose such a problem for the radar. You're still getting the doppler return, wouldn't you just compute the relative radial speed as zero?

JZ8F seems like a cool aircraft. I hear they've made some J-6's into UAV's. What about this plane then? Especially considering its "bait" mission.

"If there is a second sensor, my guess is that it is the same as yours, for radar signature collection and location. These aircraft will attempt to buzz SAM defense sites to try to get them to activate"
I based on the yellow spot between the camera windows and the translucent front of that sensor on this JZ8F's belly to think there is at least one more sensor besides the camera.
As for M2000 Vs J8F, on paper, the only advantage the M2000 has is FBW system, but if the jet is used as high altitude, fast interceptor, then with or without FBW means little. From head on, the M2000 may have a smaller RCS compared to J8F, that is why I said it all rest on J8IIF's radar capabilities. Overall, in the days before J10 and J11B, Chinese jets were very very bad for giving the pilots any SA ( situation awareness) information ( Be it electronic or visual) so in a way, M2000 is generations ahead of older J8II in this regard. Let's just hope the newer J8IIF willl correct some of this deficiencies from electronic stand point.