The Q-5, J-7, J-8 and older PLAAF aircraft

crobato

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Its hard to say, and I'm not sure if missile update datalinks require a direct narrow beam. The datalink can be shaped like a small antenna placed somewhere along the plane, or it may be radiated through the main planar array itself. The communication beam might be shaped like a cone and so long the missile is in front of the antenna, it may get the updates and the antenna can track the target. How much off bore the threat axis a plane can do depends entirely how much the radar array can gimball of the main bore axis of the plane. Some slotted array planars like the Zhuk-MSE can even go a full 90 degrees off bore.
 
Last edited:
R

ravenshield936

Banned Idiot
crobato said:
Usually for old aircraft, having active guided BVRAAMs is the equalizer. Whether you are in an old F-4, F-5E or MiG-21, when you have an active BVRAAM, at distance you got an equal shot against a newer aircraft like an F-16.

The superiority of aircraft modernity will come into play when you are in a short range dogfight engagement.

The J-8F and the J-8H with the active BVRAAM PL-12 are the only ones that can be credible against modern opposition so long they keep their distance, use their missiles at range, maintain a high speed in a fast and dash engagement. If they slow down and try to turn for a dogfight, they're toast. This means pilot discipline and smarts; the guy who thinks he's the Red Baron and tries to turn with an F-16 will be toasted. The J-8F and J-8F have newer and more powerful engines that give them a better power to weight ratio to help with the speed attacks.

The J-8D with the semi active PL-11 and PL-8 isn't going to fare as well. The PL-11 requires you keep the plane's nose on the target illuminating it with radar until the missile finishes its mission, hit the target or got lost. The problem with this is that if the plane is attacked by missiles and is forced to maneuver, the missile is lost. Thus this kind of missiles have a lower probability of kill. Ditto goes with the similar J-8B-02, which is the same as the J-8D with the older tail design and without the refueling probe.

The even older J-8s like the J-8E, which is the round inlet nose J-8I with the J-7E electronics and radar, are pure short ranged AAM only using the PL-8. These guys need to get close. These planes are not going to withstand modern fighter opposition, although they are still in service with one PLAAF division.

The J-8F and J-8H are the J-8IIs that can be identified with having a black nose with static stripes. The J-8D and J-8B-02 are the ones with the green nose.
Click to expand...

thanks crobato!!
kinda sad for me as modern fighter jet fanatic to not know such basic things

but in this case, perhaps PLAAF should retire out the J-7s and the early J-8s(no question for the J-6s), or perhaps sell them all

is it true that the J-7s,(Mig-21) are fitted with the BVRAAMs as well? is that the reason why the PLAAF still have these aircrafts in service?

or, if anyone may know why the J-7s are still around...could it be cause of their airframe time? or performing certain roles of the PLAAF's strategic plans in terms of war?

also since BVRAAM requires BVR radar naturally, would this mean the guidance of host's radar or fire and forget?
 
crobato

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
It actually took me quite a while to accumulate these things, and certainly i did not learn them overnight, just as many things about the PLA.

The PLAAF still has a good number of second generation J-7s, the J-7Bs, and an upgrade version of the -B, which is the J-7H. The J-7H is the J-7B with the J-7E's electronics and radar, so it could use the PL-8.

All the old stuff are gradually being retired, emphasis on gradually. Its kind of expected because like the Chinese government, the PLA and its branches don't do things all of a sudden or commit to a sudden change. Even some of the newer J-7Es are also being retired as well. I get the feeling that China does not want to lay off all the older fighter pilots all of a sudden, but retire them when the time is up. If you are a PLAAF pilot in your forties, flying a J-6, J-7 or J-8 and is not in the space program, you know your career future is limited and should look to the commercial sector.

All the J-11s, J-10s, Su-27s and Su-30s are all piloted by younger guys from the late twenties to the early thirties.

The PLAAF J-7s are not fitted with BVRAAMs. Technically there is a way to make them capable, which includes upgrading to a new radar set and avionics, similar to the Russian MiG-21UPG upgrade. This involves the new of the KLJ-6F radar which is enabled for the PL-12. But the PLAAF has not decided for this, concentrating its budget on the new aircraft, and content to let the J-7s fade away.

For a BVRAAM capable radar, the radar needs a high resolution track, lock and engage mode based on TWS (Track While Scan) for active guided missiles, and a single target tracking mode with illumination (STT) for semi-active guided missiles. The plane must also have a datalink to send tracking updates to the missile.
 
FriedRiceNSpice

FriedRiceNSpice

Captain
Would it be possible to engineer a system where the BVRAAM is launched by one aircraft but then guided via datalink by another aircraft's radar? For example, have J-7s fires the SD-10 which will then be directed by a J-8, J-11, J-10 or AWACs.
 
C

Chaminuka

Junior Member
FriedRiceNSpice said:
Would it be possible to engineer a system where the BVRAAM is launched by one aircraft but then guided via datalink by another aircraft's radar? For example, have J-7s fires the SD-10 which will then be directed by a J-8, J-11, J-10 or AWACs.
Click to expand...

I believe it is possible and that Gripens can guide each others missile ... ... ??? .... .... could be wrong.

Related to your question: Can an aircraft launch a missile and let ground radar take control?
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Both of those situations are possible, in technological terms. The first one was actually tried out decades ago with f-14 and e-2 combo. The latter one i don't know if it was tried out... but it's certainly doable. What could be more useful is launching a SAM and them having an aircraft (awacs?) send mid course corrections to it, until it can use its own terminal guidance.
 
crobato

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Yes, its all possible. Basically what it needs is that the party that got handed over must know what that particular missile's datalink channel is. Every missile has a unique channel so that the update communication won't interfere with each other and the missiles won't mistake the message for one missile to be their own.
 
FriedRiceNSpice

FriedRiceNSpice

Captain
Yes, its all possible. Basically what it needs is that the party that got handed over must know what that particular missile's datalink channel is. Every missile has a unique channel so that the update communication won't interfere with each other and the missiles won't mistake the message for one missile to be their own.
Click to expand...

Well then, so theoretically then, if the enemy was able to somehow discover the channel that an individual missile responds to, will the be able to control the missile?
 
crobato

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
No. There is going to be some kind of digital protocol. If you intercept a stream of data, without knowing its format, code and protocol it will appear like giberish.
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Plus the direction of the radio signal will also matter. I don't know if the missiles are even designed to catch signals coming from the front or the sides...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top