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
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.Originally Posted by crobato
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.
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.Originally Posted by crobato
Inefficiency also "costs" in delay or inferiority, which affect the cost effectiveness.
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
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
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.Originally Posted by crobato
Either way, disengagement isn't that easy at closer range. It depends on aircraft performance and contact conditions.
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.Originally Posted by crobato
I didn't say J-8 would have better sortie generation rate.
BVR affects WVR.Originally Posted by crobato
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 crobato
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.Originally Posted by Roger604
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.