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

Originally Posted by crobato

It means that these regiments are already being prepped for conversion even before the new planes arrive or become available. The training is hardened and lengthened for many of them, and the best recruits are being put into these units. This process occurs well in advance of the new planes availability. To put it in perspective, these are your future J-10 and J-11 crack regiments. They are not chosen suddenly one morning with an announcement they will change to J-10 or J-11.

This is the same as what I said. I said good pilots end up in J-11, J-10 or SU-30, and any J-7 pilots that moved up will be based on performance. Good pilots get priority in assignment and conversion. Inferior or inexperience ones stay in units with older aircrafts.

Originally Posted by crobato

Tell me, what is so difficult about sending range, bearing and targeting data across a datalink. Missiles do it all the time.

AAM usually only have one way datalink, that's why newer missiles like AIM-120D and Meteor are different. More importantly don't forget missiles are jammed all the time, this is why military spent a lot of resources on ECM and ECCM. Notice missile jamming resistance is directly associated with the cost and sophistication of the missile. Latest Tactical Tomahawk has a smaller version of MIDS datalink. Compare Tomahawk or JASSM-ER with HY-1.

The most basic way to go around jamming is to lower the transmission rate, which degrades the capability. You could also make the datalink a wideband, use spread spectrum techniques, install frequency-hopping technology, or other more sophisticated methods. These increase complexity and cost.

Simple in theory doesn't mean cheap or easy to implement.

Originally Posted by crobato

And when did this ever resulted in overpriced Chinese products? Huh?

Resource allocation... J-10 is cheaper than F-16, but it's still more expensive than FC-1 or J-7. You still pay what you get.

Inefficiency also "costs" in delay or inferiority, which affect the cost effectiveness.

Originally Posted by crobato

Actually it's not when you factor propellant advances.

IR missile's shorter range has more to do with seeker sensitivity and guidance. Doesn't matter if your propellant technology advances give you 30km range, that doesn't equal actual effective missile envelope in combat.

Originally Posted by crobato

Searching is not enough. AWACS cannot provide precise targeting and tracking data which the aircraft Track While Scan and Single Target Tracking mode can provide. AWACS tends to work on longer frequency wave length, while trying to cover a larger area. They can tell you what's there, they can't provide precise targeting data.

Fighters don't keep continuous scanning for fun. They rely on AWACS for long range detection, then only use their own radar when it's close to the weapon engagement range. This is different from "'wall of fighters coming into enemy air territory with their radars lighted hunting for targets". The only time they do that is when they already have air supremacy and not many enemy aircrafts could engage them.

Originally Posted by crobato

J-8IIs are not MiG-25s and F-22s in terms of supersonic performance. In fact, the J-8II isn't any significantly faster than the J-7.

Talking about MiG-25 is easier to understand. Doesn't mean smaller performance gaps don't matter. In air combat even one second could mean the difference between life and death. J-8's higher operational ceiling and faster speed does make a difference.

Either way, disengagement isn't that easy at closer range. It depends on aircraft performance and contact conditions.

Originally Posted by crobato

This is not a comparison between new and old. This is a comparison between old and old.

The J-8II will not produce the same mission generation and sortie rates than the J-7 due to its inherent greater complexity.

You don't compare two older aircrafts to decide the requirement. You decide the overall requirement first, then see which older aircraft is more fit.

I didn't say J-8 would have better sortie generation rate.

Originally Posted by crobato

Only in a BVR fashion, and with mixed results. The J-8II will not produce results superior to the J-7 when both are supported by AWACS or GCI.

BVR affects WVR.

Originally Posted by crobato

In terms of a peactime airforce which the PLAAF is probably truly is, the J-7 is far more useful in training pilots and has much lower costs of ownership and procurement. Old generation planes are not something you are supposed to spend too much money on.

For normal WVR trainings, I agree J-7 is much better. But neither are really that good for training. It's better to use LIFT and twin seater of the best combat aircrafts.

Originally Posted by Roger604

You're just contradicting yourself.

First you say that datalinks are so effective, but PLAAF don't have the money to afford it. Then after others point out that China can make cheap equivalents, you say that PLAAF won't get it because they can use the money better elsewhere.

WTF? So are datalinks vital or are they extraneous?

What contradiction? Good datalinks are expensive, inferior datalinks are cheap. Putting good ones on outdated J-7 is waste of resources, and putting inferior ones do not make a major difference therefore a waste too.

I never said "PLAAF don't have the money to afford it." It's about resource allocation, not absolute price. It's not about datalink is good or bad, but how to get more bang out of your buck.

People could disagree with the assumptions, but the logic is very straghtforward.

Originally Posted by cabbageman

This is the same as what I said. I said good pilots end up in J-11, J-10 or SU-30, and any J-7 pilots that moved up will be based on performance. Good pilots get priority in assignment and conversion. Inferior or inexperience ones stay in units with older aircrafts.

Sorry but I keep telling you, conversions are not done by picking pilots from all over the PLAAF, but by a complete unit basis. It is the entire unit judged as a whole, including its team work, the handling of maintenance, and the operations of the base. PLAAF don't pick and form units like Adolf Galland did with his JV-44.

There is nothing to prove by observation on your statement, and everything to prove on mine.

AAM usually only have one way datalink, that's why newer missiles like AIM-120D and Meteor are different.

AAMs do not need two way datalinks, unless you are supposing that the missile works on a TVM principle or has a man in the loop system. GCI to fighter and AWACS to fighter datalinks generally only work in a one way principle.

More importantly don't forget missiles are jammed all the time, this is why military spent a lot of resources on ECM and ECCM. Notice missile jamming resistance is directly associated with the cost and sophistication of the missile. Latest Tactical Tomahawk has a smaller version of MIDS datalink. Compare Tomahawk or JASSM-ER with HY-1.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The most basic way to go around jamming is to lower the transmission rate, which degrades the capability. You could also make the datalink a wideband, use spread spectrum techniques, install frequency-hopping technology, or other more sophisticated methods. These increase complexity and cost.

Simple in theory doesn't mean cheap or easy to implement.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. None of whom suggests this would result in a terrific increase in cost. Likewise ECM techniques would also affect radar. And by the way, even regular telecom uses wideband, spread spectrum, LPI and frequency hopping techniques, right in your cellphone.

[quote[
Resource allocation... J-10 is cheaper than F-16, but it's still more expensive than FC-1 or J-7. You still pay what you get.

Inefficiency also "costs" in delay or inferiority, which affect the cost effectiveness.[/quote]

I wonder why you keep posing increasingly irrelevant remarks relative to the topic at hand?

How does that produce "expensive" Chinese products? How does that compare to the monumental corporate bloat in the US today?

IR missile's shorter range has more to do with seeker sensitivity and guidance. Doesn't matter if your propellant technology advances give you 30km range, that doesn't equal actual effective missile envelope in combat.

What really matters is that missile effective ranges are usually shorter than what most people think---irrelevant of propellant changes, length of the missiles and its potential range, performance or speed. That's because it is not the performance of the missile that counts, but the reduction of all warning times.

It does not matter if your missile has a 100km NEZ and a 100km seeker range. Your effective chances of killing is still not good when this missile happens to warn its target while still over 100km distant, allowing the target to perform all sorts of evasion. That is the fundamental disadvantage if you increase ARH seeker range, or with any long range missile. There is too much giveaway.

Fighters don't keep continuous scanning for fun. They rely on AWACS for long range detection, then only use their own radar when it's close to the weapon engagement range. This is different from "'wall of fighters coming into enemy air territory with their radars lighted hunting for targets". The only time they do that is when they already have air supremacy and not many enemy aircrafts could engage them.

Look. Just because you think this is ideal, does not mean people will always follow it. As a matter of fact, F-15s use a wall of fighters tactic on COPE exercises and got a surprise waiting for them.

Talking about MiG-25 is easier to understand. Doesn't mean smaller performance gaps don't matter. In air combat even one second could mean the difference between life and death. J-8's higher operational ceiling and faster speed does make a difference.

If you are back in the sixties intercepting B-52 bombers. Oh wait, Buffs are still operational today.

Either way, disengagement isn't that easy at closer range. It depends on aircraft performance and contact conditions.

Of course, but the other aircraft is forced into a choice of pursuing or continue his mission.

You don't compare two older aircrafts to decide the requirement. You decide the overall requirement first, then see which older aircraft is more fit.

Both do not really fit. The PLAAF is just making effective use of outdated resources.

I didn't say J-8 would have better sortie generation rate.

You damn right it doesn't.

BVR affects WVR.

Excuse me but WVR for the J-8II isn't something people plan for. There isn't much for the J-8II other than shoot and scoot tactics. The J-8II probably depends on J-7s to follow up after BVR attacks.

For normal WVR trainings, I agree J-7 is much better. But neither are really that good for training. It's better to use LIFT and twin seater of the best combat aircrafts.

I have to disagree with you on that, since the J-7 is being used as fighter trainer not just in the PLAAF but also in customer air forces. As a matter of fact, the JL-9/FTC-2000 project is intended to further its use on the field. No one is making a J-8II trainer double seater, but there are J-7 trainer double seaters.

LIFT is not necessarily superior to a J-7 in WVR combat, and probably more in the disadvantage.

What contradiction? Good datalinks are expensive, inferior datalinks are cheap. Putting good ones on outdated J-7 is waste of resources, and putting inferior ones do not make a major difference therefore a waste too.

Oh really? Prove that statement. Give me an actual price on the cost of upgrading a datalink compared to the entire cost of an entire plane. Datalinks surely will not even come close to complete radar systems, which often cost more than a Fishbed airframe itself. And yet we see effective conversions of such like the MiG-21 Bison. What constitutes an "inferior" datalink and what constitutes a "superior" one.

The more you talk the more I think you don't know what you really are talking about.

you are starting to be full of nonsense here like I can see with your comments on IT. Like this.

If you do work in IT industry, then you should know the cost of increasing dependability. Costs increase exponentially as dependability requirement increases. There is also an obvious tradeoff between dependability and performance. All system must deal with reliability, but that doesn't mean the reliability requirements are all the same. Some companies even choose systems with low reliability that are always available, as long as system failures could be repaired quickly and no data are damaged. Military combat units usually could not opt for that path. Overall, military tends to emphasize dependability because they have no choices in the matter, while commercial industries could choose differently according to industry and sizes. Your example doesn't change the overall trend.

Originally Posted by crobato

Sorry but I keep telling you, conversions are not done by picking pilots from all over the PLAAF, but by a complete unit basis. It is the entire unit judged as a whole, including its team work, the handling of maintenance, and the operations of the base. PLAAF don't pick and form units like Adolf Galland did with his JV-44.

You treat PLAAF units as unmoving organization, said unit conversions are done as long as pilots are young and "it's got nothing to do if you're better or not." You also said there aren't any third grade pilots in J-7s, which is untrue. Pilots have different grades: special, first, second, and third. They get evaluated on a regular basis.

So I mentioned reassignment. It's not that whenever PLAAF forms a new J-11/J-10/MKK unit, PLAAF grabs good pilots from everywhere. Pilots’ assignments and reassignments don't work that way. Strategical location and unit history make some units more important than the others. When you begin fresh out of PLAAF academy, better pilots are assigned accordingly. If you perform well, you move up the ladder and could be reassigned, sometimes within the different regiments of same division. If your unit performs well such as training reforms, you also get awarded accordingly.

When PLAAF gives a division new aircraft, better pilots have the priority. If you are a third grade pilot with mediocre performance, there is no way PLAAF allows you to get OCU training because you're young and in the same division. Suppose a division has two regiments of older aircrafts, and about to receive one regiment of J-11. The lower performance pilots would probably remain at the regiment with older aircraft.

Originally Posted by crobato

AAMs do not need two way datalinks, unless you are supposing that the missile works on a TVM principle or has a man in the loop system. GCI to fighter and AWACS to fighter datalinks generally only work in a one way principle.

AAM don't "need" it, but it enhances performance. Two way datalink would help IFF because the fighter could get updates from the missile.

Even older datalink like Link 4 has both one way and two way modes.

Originally Posted by crobato

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. None of whom suggests this would result in a terrific increase in cost. Likewise ECM techniques would also affect radar. And by the way, even regular telecom uses wideband, spread spectrum, LPI and frequency hopping techniques, right in your cellphone..

How could EW and network design parameters be irrelevant for datalink? This is directly tie to complexity and cost! You think datalink with unsecured 600 bps, 100km range connection cost the same as a highly jam-resistant Ku-band datalink with 500km range?

Cellphone is irrelevant. Police cars have radar detector. But no one will talk about how police radar works the same way as airborne fighter radar in theory, when talking about costs of different fighter radars.

Originally Posted by crobato

How does that produce "expensive" Chinese products? How does that compare to the monumental corporate bloat in the US today?

Answer this:
1. For PLAAF, is J-10 "expensive" compare to J-7?
2. Do you think there is absolutely no need to consider time, cost, and capability tradeoff in all situation, as long as cost is low?

You are still doing price comparisons with external entity, when the actual problem is internal resource allocation.

Originally Posted by crobato

It does not matter if your missile has a 100km NEZ and a 100km seeker range. Your effective chances of killing is still not good when this missile happens to warn its target while still over 100km distant, allowing the target to perform all sorts of evasion. That is the fundamental disadvantage if you increase ARH seeker range, or with any long range missile. There is too much giveaway.

Longer range AAMs like Meteor do not increase the maximum range to shoot them at maximum range. If your enemy is at 40km and you have 100km BVR ramjet missile on your supercruise fighter, you could launch your missile using datalinked information provided by your friendly aircraft. The additional range of the BVR missile would make the dodging much more difficult.

Longer range means you could decide to attack at longer or shorter range. Shorter range means you have no choice.

Originally Posted by crobato

Look. Just because you think this is ideal, does not mean people will always follow it. As a matter of fact, F-15s use a wall of fighters tactic on COPE exercises and got a surprise waiting for them.

Tactic mistakes by some pilots in a single exercise do not render BVR engagement ineffective. You could also talk about tactical mistakes of some pilots in WVR, that doesn't mean WVR becomes ineffective by example.

Originally Posted by crobato

Excuse me but WVR for the J-8II isn't something people plan for. There isn't much for the J-8II other than shoot and scoot tactics. The J-8II probably depends on J-7s to follow up after BVR attacks.

Wars seldom follow you what you plan for. It's not J-8's BVR missiles give it huge head on. But J-7's lack of BVR missiles that handicaps it. When J-7s engage enemy, the lack of BVR missile means enemy aircrafts with BVR missiles could shoot early, forcing J-7 to maneuver in unfavorable conditions. This very likely offset WVR performance.

Originally Posted by crobato

I have to disagree with you on that, since the J-7 is being used as fighter trainer not just in the PLAAF but also in customer air forces. As a matter of fact, the JL-9/FTC-2000 project is intended to further its use on the field. No one is making a J-8II trainer double seater, but there are J-7 trainer double seaters.

LIFT is not necessarily superior to a J-7 in WVR combat, and probably more in the disadvantage.

For smaller air forces, J-7s could very well be the ideal choice. As a regional power with larger air force, China has different requirements.

Two seater for either J-7 or J-8 are both useless in the long run.

Aircraft's WVR performance is important, but not only factor in training. It's better to use a cost effective dedicated trainer.

Originally Posted by crobato

Give me an actual price on the cost of upgrading a datalink compared to the entire cost of an entire plane. Datalinks surely will not even come close to complete radar systems, which often cost more than a Fishbed airframe itself. And yet we see effective conversions of such like the MiG-21 Bison.

If PLAAF already has 700 brand new J-7G, then I would agree datalink upgrade might be more attractive than buying another regiment of J-10 or two regiments of FC-1. Unfortunately the actual choice is not between the equal price tag of one better aircraft or 40~60 high-end datalink terminals. The choice is between:
1. Obtain smaller fleet of new aircrafts with less personnel, better capability, and longer life cycle.
2. Upgrade older aircrafts with opposite attributes.

We must remember the hidden costs of maintaining old aircrafts reaching the end of the service life. A lot of India pilots were killed in MiG-21 training accidents, including Bison. India only keeps MiG-21 because LCA delays again and again.

It doesn't matter if something is dirt cheap. If the end result isn't your goal, then it's a waste of resources.

Originally Posted by crobato

What constitutes an "inferior" datalink and what constitutes a "superior" one.

I already used EW capability as example, which was strangely labeled "irrelevant" by you.

Cabbageman, you keep misconstruing other people's arguments and making irrelevant statements as if they respond to these arguments.

What proof do you have that the datalinks in China's aircraft can't perform nearly as well as the US ones? What are their specifications?

If you don't have any proof, and you just think US rulez because its better then just leave it at that. The discussion is pointless.

Roger has point Cabbageman. You need to post some proof of your claims . Otherwise this discussion is pointless.

So you gent's need to return to the subject at hand and stop fruitless arguments.....Thank you.

So please return to Jian's vs. F-22/F-35?? thank you

bd popeye moderator

Originally Posted by cabbageman

You treat PLAAF units as unmoving organization, said unit conversions are done as long as pilots are young and "it's got nothing to do if you're better or not." You also said there aren't any third grade pilots in J-7s, which is untrue. Pilots have different grades: special, first, second, and third. They get evaluated on a regular basis.

So I mentioned reassignment. It's not that whenever PLAAF forms a new J-11/J-10/MKK unit, PLAAF grabs good pilots from everywhere. Pilots’ assignments and reassignments don't work that way. Strategical location and unit history make some units more important than the others. When you begin fresh out of PLAAF academy, better pilots are assigned accordingly. If you perform well, you move up the ladder and could be reassigned, sometimes within the different regiments of same division. If your unit performs well such as training reforms, you also get awarded accordingly.

When PLAAF gives a division new aircraft, better pilots have the priority. If you are a third grade pilot with mediocre performance, there is no way PLAAF allows you to get OCU training because you're young and in the same division. Suppose a division has two regiments of older aircrafts, and about to receive one regiment of J-11. The lower performance pilots would probably remain at the regiment with older aircraft.

All completely speculative. What is your proof that the PLAAF does this?

We have direct proof that PLAAF converts entire J-7 regiments to J-10 and J-11.

You don't have a single iota of proof that the PLAAF handpicks pilots and forms a new regiment with them.

AAM don't "need" it, but it enhances performance. Two way datalink would help IFF because the fighter could get updates from the missile.

Speculative again. Two way datalink only happens with certain missiles such as those using TVM or man in the loop system. Does not happen with AAMs which don't have the space for that.

Even older datalink like Link 4 has both one way and two way modes.

Yes.

How could EW and network design parameters be irrelevant for datalink? This is directly tie to complexity and cost! You think datalink with unsecured 600 bps, 100km range connection cost the same as a highly jam-resistant Ku-band datalink with 500km range?

What is your proof that this creates an enormous complexity and cost?

Cellphone is irrelevant. Police cars have radar detector. But no one will talk about how police radar works the same way as airborne fighter radar in theory, when talking about costs of different fighter radars.

It is relevant in a sense that LPI, frequency agility are all used in celphones as standard devices in order to prevent communications getting crossed. It shows you that techniques you percieve as being military and exotic are actually, remarkably cheap to implement and happen all around all the time.

Longer range AAMs like Meteor do not increase the maximum range to shoot them at maximum range. If your enemy is at 40km and you have 100km BVR ramjet missile on your supercruise fighter, you could launch your missile using datalinked information provided by your friendly aircraft. The additional range of the BVR missile would make the dodging much more difficult.

Longer range means you could decide to attack at longer or shorter range. Shorter range means you have no choice.

Irrelevant. The effectiveness of a missile truly lies in the reduction of warning time and it is irrespective of range. Despite all the talk of longer ranged missiles, which is only used to line the pockets of defense contractors, it is quite stunning to see that most kills, simulated, exercised or real, occur at relatively close ranges and even BVRAAMs are used as glorified short range missiles.

Tactic mistakes by some pilots in a single exercise do not render BVR engagement ineffective. You could also talk about tactical mistakes of some pilots in WVR, that doesn't mean WVR becomes ineffective by example.

What tactics? What mistakes?

Wars seldom follow you what you plan for. It's not J-8's BVR missiles give it huge head on. But J-7's lack of BVR missiles that handicaps it. When J-7s engage enemy, the lack of BVR missile means enemy aircrafts with BVR missiles could shoot early, forcing J-7 to maneuver in unfavorable conditions. This very likely offset WVR performance.

Which is true. But that is also true of any other plane. A J-8II, J-10 or J-11 or any other fighter in existance will not stop the other fighter from firing at it. The presence of a BVR missile isn't preventive of the situation. In any case, as a defensive interceptor, the J-7 is not going to be alone.

A J-8II is incapable of following up its BVR attacks other than ripple firing its AAMs. But as I said, it would have to scoot away. The task of following up those attacks will come from the J-7s. J-7s would also follow up J-10s and J-11s.

Cheap light fighters can serve easily as support for larger, heavy fighters with greater BVR capability.

For smaller air forces, J-7s could very well be the ideal choice. As a regional power with larger air force, China has different requirements.

Two seater for either J-7 or J-8 are both useless in the long run.

You're wrong there. China and other countries have shown that a two seater JJ-7 is quite useful.

Aircraft's WVR performance is important, but not only factor in training. It's better to use a cost effective dedicated trainer.

How is your "cost effective" dedicated trainer anymore cost effective, huh? In fact many LIFTs cost more than a brand new J-7 and still lack its performance.

If PLAAF already has 700 brand new J-7G, then I would agree datalink upgrade might be more attractive than buying another regiment of J-10 or two regiments of FC-1. Unfortunately the actual choice is not between the equal price tag of one better aircraft or 40~60 high-end datalink terminals. The choice is between:
1. Obtain smaller fleet of new aircrafts with less personnel, better capability, and longer life cycle.
2. Upgrade older aircrafts with opposite attributes.

We must remember the hidden costs of maintaining old aircrafts reaching the end of the service life. A lot of India pilots were killed in MiG-21 training accidents, including Bison. India only keeps MiG-21 because LCA delays again and again.

It doesn't matter if something is dirt cheap. If the end result isn't your goal, then it's a waste of resources.

Since you like to talk about cost, the fact is, if I make the same datalink for much higher volume that includes installing them on J-7G and J-8F fighters, it would lower the cost of the item to J-10s and J-11Bs through volume amortization.

And of course, maintaining J-7G + J-8F will cost you more than a single J-10 in the long run. Since a J-7 and a J-8II is not complete by itself, one lacking good BVR capability and the other has poor WVR capability, a single J-10 would be much more cost effective in the long run, even if the upfront cost of a J-10 might cost more than a J-8F and J-7G combined.

But the point remains is that China cannot invent an ideal situation, it has to deal wth a situation that already exists. It has J-7 and J-8 fighters and assembly lines for them. It cannot eliminate its legacy roots this easily.

There is a fundamental difference between India and China. India does not make its MiG-21s and has to source parts elsewhere. China is self sufficient in both the construction and maintainance of its own jets. A lot of J-7s and J-8IIs are not as old as India's MiG-21s.

And if you go back to my other post, I mentioned that one of the J-8II's virtues have been a strong airframe that has quite a durable life. Hence even the first generation J-8 with the rounded inlet noses are still operational today.

And no, I don't think it's worth upgrading any old aircraft that is low in airframe life. But at least the ones that still have significant airframe life is still worth upgrading whether its J-7 or J-8II.

I already used EW capability as example, which was strangely labeled "irrelevant" by you.

Let me add that you are no expert in datalinks to consider what is "expensive" or what is "cheap". Avionics upgrade, including radar and datalinks is considered one of the most cost effective of all upgrades and is applied in many old aircraft around the world. Even if the upgrade cost more than the cost of the aircraft in paper value.

This is PLANAF, but still applies:
http://www.chinamil.com.cn/gb/pladai...TodayNews.html
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."

http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2002-10-16/1709770115.html
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.

Originally Posted by crobato

Speculative again. Two way datalink only happens with certain missiles such as those using TVM or man in the loop system. Does not happen with AAMs which don't have the space for that.

Not speculation. Old AAMs don't have them, but the new ones do.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html
"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."

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk...AA/bvraam.html
"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."

Originally Posted by crobato

What is your proof that this creates an enormous complexity and cost?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by crobato

It is relevant in a sense that LPI, frequency agility are all used in celphones as standard devices in order to prevent communications getting crossed. It shows you that techniques you percieve as being military and exotic are actually, remarkably cheap to implement and happen all around all the time.

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. 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.

Originally Posted by crobato

The effectiveness of a missile truly lies in the reduction of warning time and it is irrespective of range.

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.

Originally Posted by crobato

Which is true. But that is also true of any other plane. A J-8II, J-10 or J-11 or any other fighter in existance will not stop the other fighter from firing at it. The presence of a BVR missile isn't preventive of the situation. In any case, as a defensive interceptor, the J-7 is not going to be alone.

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.

Originally Posted by crobato

A J-8II is incapable of following up its BVR attacks other than ripple firing its AAMs. But as I said, it would have to scoot away.

I don't think J-8s have to always run away, it all depends on the intercept condition and enemy aircraft.

Originally Posted by crobato

You're wrong there. China and other countries have shown that a two seater JJ-7 is quite useful.

How is your "cost effective" dedicated trainer anymore cost effective, huh? In fact many LIFTs cost more than a brand new J-7 and still lack its performance.

JJ-7 is useful only if you plan to maintain a large J-7 fleet. It's an 20 year old design.

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.

Originally Posted by crobato

But the point remains is that China cannot invent an ideal situation, it has to deal wth a situation that already exists. It has J-7 and J-8 fighters and assembly lines for them. It cannot eliminate its legacy roots this easily.

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.

If I say F-22A is better than J-10, do I have to "prove" it by giving all of J-10 and F-22's specification? Not every assessment needs to be quantitative.

Other people assumed FC-1's datalink is comparable to US datalinks, how come they don't have to "prove" anything but I do? If you don't want different opinions, just say it and I'd leave. No need to pick on me and apply special standard.

People accept that F-22 is better than J-10 because, at the very least, people know F-22 has stealth features and J-10 doesn't.

But you know nothing specific about Chinese datalinks, and you just come on here and say "Chinese stuff sux because USA stuff rulez."

It's pretty obvious to everybody, no matter how "technical" a language you couch it in, and we're calling you on it.

So either give some specific evidence that (1) Chinese datalinks are greatly inferior to American datalinks and (2) they are not worth the money China spends on them....

....or else please keep your biases to yourself.

Originally Posted by Roger604

People accept that F-22 is better than J-10 because, at the very least, people know F-22 has stealth features and J-10 doesn't.

Exactly, there are different ways for assessment when the information is incomplete.

US introduced E-2C and E-3A in the 1970s, PLAAF only began to test KJ-2000. US is putting F-22A in service, when PLA is gearing for J-10 mass production. Why? It's not about "Chinese stuff sux because USA stuff rulez", it's about US having decades of Electronic Warfare experiences and standing at the forefront of the Network Centric Warfare and technological developments.

JTIDS first became available in the mid-70s. But it was too large and costly and therefore only installed on larger platform like AWACS and ground stations. MIDS project was initiated in the 80s for fighters, NATO and US began to install these terminals in the 90s and fleet-wide upgrade is still on going.

Compare this to PLAAF's new datalink, which only becomes operational on J-8 recently in small number. PLAAF's AWACS is still being tested. PLA doesn't have to go through the research from scratch and could stand on the progress already made. However there is no perfect short cut, capability gap still must be overcome.

You are the one showing all the biases by insisting PLA's technology must be on par with US without any evidences. US has the experience and the track record, PLA doesn't.

If China wants to become a true Superpower, it needs to abandon the A-Q mentality. Only a realistic approach could ensure the rise of China. This is not "Great Leap" era when slogans rule.

Originally Posted by cabbageman

This is PLANAF, but still applies:
http://www.chinamil.com.cn/gb/pladai...TodayNews.html
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."

http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2002-10-16/1709770115.html
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.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html
"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."

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk...AA/bvraam.html
"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.

Originally Posted by cabbageman

Exactly, there are different ways for assessment when the information is incomplete.

US introduced E-2C and E-3A in the 1970s, PLAAF only began to test KJ-2000. US is putting F-22A in service, when PLA is gearing for J-10 mass production. Why? It's not about "Chinese stuff sux because USA stuff rulez", it's about US having decades of Electronic Warfare experiences and standing at the forefront of the Network Centric Warfare and technological developments.

JTIDS first became available in the mid-70s. But it was too large and costly and therefore only installed on larger platform like AWACS and ground stations. MIDS project was initiated in the 80s for fighters, NATO and US began to install these terminals in the 90s and fleet-wide upgrade is still on going.

Compare this to PLAAF's new datalink, which only becomes operational on J-8 recently in small number. PLAAF's AWACS is still being tested. PLA doesn't have to go through the research from scratch and could stand on the progress already made. However there is no perfect short cut, capability gap still must be overcome.

You are the one showing all the biases by insisting PLA's technology must be on par with US without any evidences. US has the experience and the track record, PLA doesn't.

If China wants to become a true Superpower, it needs to abandon the A-Q mentality. Only a realistic approach could ensure the rise of China. This is not "Great Leap" era when slogans rule.

Lol. It was the Russians who first invented datalinks for their MiG-17s back in the fifties, technologies that were transferred to China. 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. The Su-27 introduced to China, peer to peer datalinks, but we don't know if this technology is copied and used on later versions of J-7s and J-8IIs, or made compatible with the Su-27s and Su-30MKKs. It is not impossible for the Russians to partake in such developments. It would have meant that the Su-27s and Su-30MKKs can be used to coordinate J-7s and J-8IIs.

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, through willing parties like the Russians, the Israelis (!), and the Europeans who view things with a more mercenary attitude.

Originally Posted by crobato

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, through willing parties like the Russians, the Israelis (!), and the Europeans who view things with a more mercenary attitude.

I've been watching this thread from the sidelines with interest. I say both you and cabbageman have interesting takes on the situation. I'll avoid jumping in on those issues for now.

I see your point on many things here, but I will have to disagree with you on this last statement crobato. I'm an engineer myself. And any engineer worth their salt out there will tell you that technology absorption as a primary source of technological development will always lead to stagnation. In the technological development process, there are lessons learned that you just won't get by copying technology from primary sources, or reverse engineering technologies. When developing technologies based on older or existing designs, you won't be able to see some of the difficulties from the "trial and error" part of R & D that primary sources encountered.

So I would say, yes, decades worth of experience does count. And no, one cannot absorb, copy, purchase, or reverse-engineer their way to the top. The copied stuff is never as good as the original. And the knowledge/experience accrued through the development is non-existent. This situation will be no different for China.

Originally Posted by Sea Dog

I've been watching this thread from the sidelines with interest. I say both you and cabbageman have interesting takes on the situation. I'll avoid jumping in on those issues for now.

I see your point on many things here, but I will have to disagree with you on this last statement crobato. I'm an engineer myself. And any engineer worth their salt out there will tell you that technology absorption as a primary source of technological development will always lead to stagnation. In the technological development process, there are lessons learned that you just won't get by copying technology from primary sources, or reverse engineering technologies. When developing technologies based on older or existing designs, you won't be able to see some of the difficulties from the "trial and error" part of R & D that primary sources encountered.

So I would say, yes, decades worth of experience does count. And no, one cannot absorb, copy, purchase, or reverse-engineer their way to the top. The copied stuff is never as good as the original. And the knowledge/experience accrued through the development is non-existent. This situation will be no different for China.

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.

Originally Posted by Sea Dog

So I would say, yes, decades worth of experience does count. And no, one cannot absorb, copy, purchase, or reverse-engineer their way to the top. The copied stuff is never as good as the original. And the knowledge/experience accrued through the development is non-existent. This situation will be no different for China.

Absolutely. It will never have the exact same capability. But it can get very close to the capability of original systems. US tech is leading edge. Billions are spent to improve on older tech, billions in exchange for relatively small improvements. That's because it's brand new and no one else is doing it, there's no reference on how to do it and it's all trial and error. But those sligtly 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).

Furthermore, china does have quite a bit of experience, speaking on an absolute level. After the cultural revolution the speed at which tech progress was made is nothing short of astounding. And that progress, because china is stil behind somewhat, will continue. 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)

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.