Should china go for more J-8 or concerate on new desings like FC-1??

[tphuang]

This is an interesting question. I've seen a lot of discussions on this on Chinese forums. First of all, let's say we are comparing J-8F to FC-1. The FC-1 model we are comparing J-8F to is prototype 4 for the sake of the argument. So, which one has a better chance to win? Remember, these are the two types of planes that will be replacing the really low end Chinese planes like the early models of J-7 and J-8

Some critical stats:
J-8:
Use KLJ-1 (not sure the stats, but is said to be multi-target capable). I'd think it's better than Zhuk-8II PD radar (70 KM foward detection and 40KM backward detection vs 5m^2 targets), because China rejected it.

other stats from sinodefense:
Dimentions: Wingspan 9.344m; Length 21.59m; Height 5.41m
Weight: Empty 9,240kg; Normal take-off 14,300kg; Max take-off 17,800kg
Max Speed: Mach 2.2
Range: Ferry range 2,200km (1,187nm; 1,367 miles) with drop tanks; radius 800km (432nm; 497 miles) on a typical mission; 1,200km with one aerial refuelling
Service Ceiling: 20,200m
Max Climb Rate: 12,000m/min (sea level)
G Limit: +6.9 (1,000m) or +4.7 (Mach 0.9/5,000 m)

- other important parts, can launch PL-11, PL-12 and other latest chinese AAMs and has aerial refueling capability.

As for FC-1

use KLJ-7/10, again not sure about the radar's performance. I'd suspect it's slightly better than Kopyo-F, which plaaf rejected. The range is probably slightly lower than that of KLJ-1 due to antenna size, but tracking and engagement should be much better, since it is just a downsized version of KLJ-3, which has 15/6 as the tracking/engagement numbers. I'd say FC-1 might do 12/4? Since it only has 7 hard points and 3800kg of maximum payload, it probably doesn't need to engage more than 4 targets at once.

other stats from sinodefense:
Crew: One
Wingspan: 9.00 m
Length: 14 m
Height: 5.10 m
Weight: Empty 6,321 kg; Normal take-off: 9,100 kg; Max take-off 12,700 kg; Max weapon payload 3,800 kg
Maximum Weapon Load: 3,600 kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 1.6
Range: Ferry range 3,000 km; Operational Radius 1,352 km
Service Ceiling: 16,500 m
Maximum Climb Rate: N/A
+G Limit: 8.5

- other important parts, can also fire PL-12 and short ranged AAMs. Should have aerial refueling capability in the future and also has DSI.

plus points for J-8F:
- moves faster
- operates higher
- carries more AAMs
- longer ranged radar?

plus points of JF-17:
- much more advanced airframe allowing for greater manuverability
- more advanced radar
- smaller RCS

an analysis from a Chinese site:
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/Get/NET/10281808892.htm
　　对于空战，其实懂战术的人真的不多，就算很多看过实际空战的也是如此。我草草的推演一下单机，有预警信 息的情况。

　　先交待一下背景信息，预警雷达设定为远程预警，可以给出误差较大的方位和高度已经运动失量。但因为距离 远，所以刷新率低，大约7-10秒刷新一次数据，这个符合当前E-2c一级的战术预警和14号数据链的联合战术信息发布平台的水平。目标运动状态的改变需要6-20次刷新才能分辨，判别预警信息中目标的位置确切变化需要1分钟以上。

　　再交待一下交战状态，假设双方机载雷达水平和指标一样，上70，下38。辅助电子设备相当，导弹都为2 枚PL-12加2枚PL-8。J-8f属攻方，FC1守方，假定起点时两者都是机内满油。

　　J-8f属攻方，来袭高度9000米，速度0.95马赫，预警系统于200km以外发现并确认威胁，起飞FC1 拦截，此时两者皆在机载雷达视距外，FC1采用低空进入，但为了发挥速度，飞行高度为3000米，速度也为 0.95。两者迎头对飞，预计将在330秒以后相会，FC1由于是截击，所以采用空军导引律中最常用的切线 进入法，爬升到稳定高度后以J-8f运动方向的一侧夹角大约70度左右迂回，企图在J-8f没有发现的情况下进入其雷达扫描死角的侧方或者侧后方进行攻击占位，1分钟以后J-8f从战术数据链传回的战场信息里察觉了这一变化，这个时候两者距离缩短到170km左右，FC1完成转向 后进入J-8f侧约10度左右的位置，这个时候J-8f有两个选择，一是直飞待机，一是直接转向目标。因为是两者空战，我们选取后者，大约1分钟后 FC1也察觉到J-8f转向，两者距离缩短到150Km,仍然很远，两者间任何一个想要脱离都是自由的。面对直接指向 自己的J-8f，FC1如果继续原定计划飞行就会被J-8f咬住，如果继续沿一个方向切J-8f的运动方向，这样将在天空中画一个大圈，而发觉了的J-8f只需要一个小圈就可以稳稳咬住目标。这个时候FC1采用反向切线机动，朝J-8f相反的切线方向摆脱。下一分钟两者距离缩短到120km左右，J-8f发现自己转向过度，FC1出现在自己另一侧的20度方向，两者高度速度都不变，进入和脱离的主动权也依 然独自掌握，J-8f面对低空的FC1需要做出战术决策，是和FC1一样使用互相切线的占位机动还是选用别的战术，FC1页 需要决定怎样进入第一次攻击。FC1判断J-8f会再度改变航向，追踪自己的不利位置，所以准备利用速度的变化给目标一个惊喜，同时J-8f也在考虑是让FC1继续切线，还改变策略和FC1在天空中画大圈相互对峙，考虑到自己所在高度有优势， 比较容易发挥速度的特点，那么J-8f优选和FC1空中画圈，于是J-8f并不改变航向，采用FC1同样的战术切约60度的切线角进入，同时加速，利用速度的优势在空中转圈的同 时不断的接近对手的尾部。FC1等待20-30秒以后发现J-8f并没有再度转向，而是力图切入自己尾后，且速度在不断上升，这个时候最佳的选择就是抄内线，用更小的半 径去切后尾。J-8f同样在20秒以后发现了这个变化，两者不断调整机头的结果就是最后变成再度机头相对而飞，这样再一分钟 过去，两者距离 70Km,这个时候要进入机载雷达的作用距离了。这个时候两者间J-8f仍然有选择脱离战场自由，因为其飞行高度高，速度快，选择脱离后，FC1追不及。但两者决心将对方踩于 马下以让众多网友俯首称臣，所以准备开始进一步的战术机动。

　　J-8f已经在先前的机动中进行了加速，又占据高度优势，这个时候速度约为1.5马赫，FC1没有加速，利用0 .95马赫时转向速度快进行了先前几次机动，两者进入雷达视距以后，FC1会在上视的目标中先发现J-8f，而J-8f在9000高度对3000高度的FC1并不算多么俯视，大约晚 10km左右就会发现，这10km的距离在两者此时的相对速度中只需要15秒左右就消失了。先敌发现的FC 1具有先选择战术机动的有限时间15秒，但不利的是，如果继续采用切线机动，将不能将J-8f一直保持在雷达视野里，选择迎头飞行因速度和高度都居劣势，毫无胜算。于是FC1决定出险招，在15秒 以内完成俯冲，将高度降低到500米以下，转向J-8f机头指向处40度，速度加速到1.1马赫，雷达在发现J-8f以后关机，不照射J-8f避免被J-8f 的雷达告警设备暴露了位置角度，这个时候FC1将换取15秒左右的J-8f机载雷达盲区，但可以通过预警信息察看位置不精确的信息，但等过了15秒察觉 FC1具体动向时，FC1已经在J-8f的雷达探测角度边缘，机载雷达已经可以捕捉FC1的位置了，这个时候两者进入可以交战的区域大约相距4 0Km,J -8f仍然拥有优势，但必须第一时间转弯，一疏忽就会错过时机。如果飞行员有经验，转向成功，那么可以先令下 射，不过这个距离上发射导弹攻击低空目标，J -8f必须在前10秒内保持相对稳定的航向，以对导弹进行中继制导，而这10秒时间足够FC1转向可以开雷达 进行攻击，这个时候FC1处于上视，导弹无需中继就能发现目标，这一次交战的结果是：

　　J-8f有33%的被击落率，FC1有48%的被击落率。不过如果两者都在察觉导弹发射后进入规避，则相应下降 到22%和33%。超视距作战中 J-8f有一定的优势，但这个优势是依靠高空高速积累而来。但如果两者都未能击落对方，接下来的距离只能进行格 斗了，FC1起始位置不佳，虽然机动性好，容易被J-8f脱离，不过问题是J-8f并不敢脱离，对方还有一枚pl12没有发射，如果脱离，从屁股后射来的导弹命中率可相当高。这种潜在威 胁逼迫J- 8f必须寻找和对方迎头的机会，以期利用pl12最后一次发射机会，迎头是个双刃剑，死活对半也可能两败俱 伤。如果两者都小心翼翼的进入盘旋，那J-8f 唯一的机会在于进入速度高，可以利用几次瞬时的最大盘旋，而FC1起始位置高度和速度有差距，这一阶段，F C1被击落的机率也稍高，但是如果J-8f没能在这几次机动动中占据优势，那么接下来就只能看FC1如何慢慢磨到后尾优势位置后再击杀的。当然， 近距空战还需要更讲究技术和机会的把握，J-8f在初段和中段是占据优势的。

　　从这样的空战传统战术来看，FC1似乎胜面较小，而且最基本的原因还是败在高空高速的问题上，FC1不 选择高空高速，主要是因为自己的最大速度较为逊色，加之要爬升，发射导弹在射程上会有些劣势，很有可能在早 期和J-8f画大圈的高速追逐中就失败了。

　　不过在实战中，不分高低都能如一探测的预警系统并不多，低空飞机除了能多10几秒时间切角度外，很有可 能短时间避开对方预警信息的检测，在对方发现后还可以利用一个钟形机动爬升高度和摆脱雷达的照射，换取摆脱 跟踪破坏射击条件的目的，同时可以发射导弹反击，缺点在于时机极不好掌握，钟形机动后速度慢，几乎就是一个 固定靶。可谓生存还是毁灭，这是一个问题！

[MIGleader]

the fc-1 certainly is morte manuverable than a j-8, for it had root edges and a rear weight. the j-8 does not have a longer range radar, but it can trak multiple targets, which the fc-1s grifo radar cannot. the j-8 only carried 4 a2a
milssles last time i checked.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The J-8 costs about $20 million per unit, as opposed to $14 million for the FC-1.

[Gollevainen]

Is this thread about wich one should China purhcase? or wich one is better plane? wich one have bigger wings?....J-8 has bigger wings so it wins...

(i tought we have passed the phase where we made these silly coparising threads....)

[tphuang]

no, I just have seemed the find many threads lately on whether China should get more J-8Fs or FC-1 to replace the really old planes. I didn't know J-8 is so expensive. Even J-10 is only 25 million.

[Gollevainen]

no, I just have seemed the find many threads lately on whether China should get more J-8Fs or FC-1 to replace the really old planes. I didn't know J-8 is so expensive. Even J-10 is only 25 million.

So you mean more like the "should china go for more J-8 or FC-1?" type of comparison...well that is much more reasonable and the only acceptaple one in this case so perhaps we change the tittle to more appealing???

[trkl]

China should definately go for the newer designs like FC-1. FC-1 has a similar level of capability as J-8F on paper, but it's a safe bet that FC-1 will be more reliable and have lower operating costs, so FC-1 is a much better deal.

[ahho]

fc-1 is on'y 14 million??? i thought the third prototype that they estimated was at least 15 million

[MIGleader]

why should china go for either design? both of them are clearly 3rd generation plus aricraft. china already has fourth generation planes planes and is going for a fifth generation. i would rather have a force of 250 j-10 than 1000 j-8. chinas goal is to modernize its ariforce with a smaller amount of more advanced planes. it does not need to replace all of its old planes. forget the j-7s,j-8s and fc-1s.

[trkl]

I wouldn't call FC-1 a third generation aircraft. It uses a lot of technologies that only appear starting with the fourth generation. The reason why it is not as capable as most other fourth generation aircraft is because of it's small size and desire to keep the cost low.

[MIGleader]

I wouldn't call FC-1 a third generation aircraft. It uses a lot of technologies that only appear starting with the fourth generation. The reason why it is not as capable as most other fourth generation aircraft is because of it's small size and desire to keep the cost low.

thts why its called three plus. it still lacks the advanced radars, design, and ecm of fourth generation.

[Sea Dog]

thts why its called three plus. it still lacks the advanced radars, design, and ecm of fourth generation.

That's very true. I believe it would be possible to retro-fit some airframes with newer equipment. If China went that way, the cost savings from not having the new design might pay for the upgrades.

[trkl]

thts why its called three plus. it still lacks the advanced radars, design, and ecm of fourth generation.

The radar that it uses is just a smaller version of the radar on the J-10, and radars are easy to upgrade.

In terms of design, the latest models of FC-1 look like an F-16 with the LERX of an F/A-18E/F and the intakes of an F-35 JSF. Looks like a 4th generation fighter to me.

In terms of ECM, does anyone even know what kind of ecm it will have? And how hard is it to upgrade ecm anyway?

[MIGleader]

The radar that it uses is just a smaller version of the radar on the J-10, and radars are easy to upgrade.

In terms of design, the latest models of FC-1 look like an F-16 with the LERX of an F/A-18E/F and the intakes of an F-35 JSF. Looks like a 4th generation fighter to me.

In terms of ECM, does anyone even know what kind of ecm it will have? And how hard is it to upgrade ecm anyway?

please do some reaserch. the fc-1 currently uses the italien grifo radar. the
j-10 is fitted with the kjl-3 radar designed by the nanjing research institute of technology. the kjl-3 is not a particularly advanced radar anyways. the fc-1 does have root edges, but no where near the use of edges on the su-27 or mig-29. the fc-1 is a fifteen million dollar fighter designed for export. do not expect it to compare with a 30 million dollar front line fighter. in every scenarion that has fc-1 vs. fourth gen, the fc-1 loses.

the fc-1s intakes look nothing liek a jsfs. they are both simply side mounted.

[tphuang]

actually, sinodefense is wrong here. It's pretty clear that KLJ-7 or KLJ-10 which is equipped on JF-17 has mutli-engagement capability. This was confirmed by PAF officials recently. The reason that Grifo S7 was chosen by PAF was due to its claim that it can track 16 and engage 6 (I doubt it has ever achieved that), since it still haven't passed PAF standard (I read on PDF).

In my opinion, if J-8F actually costs 20 million to build, why are we still building it? What a waste of money.

[trkl]

please do some reaserch. the fc-1 currently uses the italien grifo radar. the
j-10 is fitted with the kjl-3 radar designed by the nanjing research institute of technology. the kjl-3 is not a particularly advanced radar anyways. the fc-1 does have root edges, but no where near the use of edges on the su-27 or mig-29. the fc-1 is a fifteen million dollar fighter designed for export. do not expect it to compare with a 30 million dollar front line fighter. in every scenarion that has fc-1 vs. fourth gen, the fc-1 loses.

the fc-1s intakes look nothing liek a jsfs. they are both simply side mounted.

The current prototypes don't have the DSI or the big LERX, but the next one (number 4) will. It should look something like this:
http://military.people.com.cn/mediafile/200509/21/F2005092106150707338.jpg

The FC-1's radar might not be as advanced as the latest US radars, but it is far more advanced than the radars that aircraft like F-15 and F-16 started out with.

[swimmerXC]

FC-1 :china:
http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/3549/fc1latestconfiguration021kp.jpg
http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/5715/fc1latestconfiguration012hs.jpg

[Gollevainen]

As now onvards no posting of same pics in multible times ok?

[swimmerXC]

k, your the boss :coffee:

[vincelee]

where the hell did you get the figure that a J-8F costs 20 mil? That's the projected FC-1 per unit price, assuming the No 4 prototype is fairly close to the production model.

[Chairman Hu]

even if it does or not, lets say itz actually 15mil, FC-1 > J-8 in flexibility and the systems it has, the J-8 needs upgrade and China is wasting money on that and even the PLAN said they need a plane like this, and last time i checked, the J-10 doesnt have a naval variant, and itz not like the PLAN is truely accepting the J-8.

[MIGleader]

even if it does or not, lets say itz actually 15mil, FC-1 > J-8 in flexibility and the systems it has, the J-8 needs upgrade and China is wasting money on that and even the PLAN said they need a plane like this, and last time i checked, the J-10 doesnt have a naval variant, and itz not like the PLAN is truely accepting the J-8.

this is the third time youve changed your icon!!!

im having a hard time understanding you thoughts...the j-8 was designed to be an interceptor, while the fc-1 is a cheap, export plane. almost all the upgrade the j-8 has could be done in a equal or better manner to the newer fc-1. i dont think china intends to continue building j-8s. might as well upgrde the existing 240 planes. as for fc-1...an aircraft should never be used in a role it was not designed for. otherwise, you get the su-27 effect, where an attept to use a $$$ million su-27 in ground attack will fail and result in the loss of the plane.

why does china need fc-1 is the question. although it is advanced and capable, china needs to spend more money on making smaller numbers of more advanced aircraft like j-10, j-11, and j-12.

[vincelee]

why? because they signed a deal with the Paks to buy 150 FC-1s.

[MIGleader]

why? because they signed a deal with the Paks to buy 150 FC-1s.

are u replying to me? so what does pakistans aquisiting of fc-1s have to do wit china's need for them?

[PiSigma]

if china also buys the FC-1, it lowers the price for both of them. FC-1 have a way bigger upgrade potential than J-8. FC-1 is a cheap alternative for china to replace J-7s, it's not a replacement or alternative to the J-10. since J-10 is a medium, and FC-1 is light. although J-10 doesn't have a naval variant right now, but it's already in the development stages. J-8 was never really liked by the navy or air force very much, so i'm sure both forces would probably gladly trade in their J-8s for FC-1s.

[MIGleader]

if china also buys the FC-1, it lowers the price for both of them. FC-1 have a way bigger upgrade potential than J-8. FC-1 is a cheap alternative for china to replace J-7s, it's not a replacement or alternative to the J-10. since J-10 is a medium, and FC-1 is light. although J-10 doesn't have a naval variant right now, but it's already in the development stages. J-8 was never really liked by the navy or air force very much, so i'm sure both forces would probably gladly trade in their J-8s for FC-1s.

but the point is, does china need a light fighter to replace the j-7? in a sense, the j-10 is the light fighter. the j-11 is the heavy. and what role would an fc-1 have in a af made up of j-xxs soon? chinas goal is to modernize, not to increase in size.

[PiSigma]

J-xx will need another 10 years or so to be fully functional and to start mass production. and to modernize might mean also to decrease in size, but for a country the size of china, it's impossible to have only a few hundred aircrafts in the Airforce. and china is not as rich as USA, which is the only country in the world that can afford to have all F-22 and JSFs in AF in the next 20 years or something. china still need to have a part of her AF with lower quality planes for border defence. countries like kazahstan (can't spell) or mongolia don't need J-10s/J-11/J-xx to guard, right now it's just a squadron of J-7s. so in a few years they could use FC-1s.

[ahho]

how much fc-1 will china is going to order

[swimmerXC]

J-xx will need another 10 years or so to be fully functional and to start mass production. and to modernize might mean also to decrease in size, but for a country the size of china, it's impossible to have only a few hundred aircrafts in the Airforce. and china is not as rich as USA, which is the only country in the world that can afford to have all F-22 and JSFs in AF in the next 20 years or something. china still need to have a part of her AF with lower quality planes for border defence. countries like kazahstan (can't spell) or mongolia don't need J-10s/J-11/J-xx to guard, right now it's just a squadron of J-7s. so in a few years they could use FC-1s.

i highly doubt that the USAF will have all JSF and F-22 in 20 years... remember they are already starting UCAV research, in fact boeing which lost the JSF to LM is leading in UCAV research.

how much fc-1 will china is going to order

somewhere in the old forum there's an article about PLAAF going for ~200 FC-1, PLAN might get excited and go for some too....

[adeptitus]

how much fc-1 will china is going to order

The only "firm" numbers that have been published is Pakistan's desire to obtain 150 FC-1 aircraft. There are no firm information on how many the PLAAF would take.

From PLAAF's point of view, they probably much rather have J-10's. But since Pakistan offered to eat half of the R&D costs on the FC-1, it's not a bad deal. Just think of it as China's version of ROCAF IDF.

=================

As for the "per copy" cost debate on FC-1 vs. J-8, the estimated costs will differ depending on number of aircraft produced and total R&D expense. To generalize, the more planes you build, the lower per unit cost.

The J-8 served its purpose until the introduction of newer aircraft. But it has been an export failure.

[peace_lover]

hey my fellows , i still don't know how to iniate post , can u tell me ? thanks !

my email add is chineseboy7427@yahoo.com.cn

[tphuang]

The only "firm" numbers that have been published is Pakistan's desire to obtain 150 FC-1 aircraft. There are no firm information on how many the PLAAF would take.

From PLAAF's point of view, they probably much rather have J-10's. But since Pakistan offered to eat half of the R&D costs on the FC-1, it's not a bad deal. Just think of it as China's version of ROCAF IDF.

=================

As for the "per copy" cost debate on FC-1 vs. J-8, the estimated costs will differ depending on number of aircraft produced and total R&D expense. To generalize, the more planes you build, the lower per unit cost.

The J-8 served its purpose until the introduction of newer aircraft. But it has been an export failure.
the official word is 250 FC-1s for plaaf and 150 for paf. But with the new changes to FC-1, who knows. I figure the upgraded J-8 is taking part of the plaaf market away from FC-1, that's for sure. As for J-8, it's just like every other SAC plane that has absolutely zero export success.

[MIGleader]

hey my fellows , i still don't know how to iniate post , can u tell me ? thanks !

my email add is chineseboy7427@yahoo.com.cn

wow, u syre are open. well, i dont know what initiate post is. u mean like post pics?:)

[Chairman Hu]

what is the friggin point of FC-1s in the PLAAF, the Jian-10 is heavier and more powerful, the plane is even in service and a single/double seated version already built, and IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, the Jian-10 can fire anti-ship missiles, I mean, that can take place of the FC-1 already, the PLAN needs something cheap and effective, the FC-1 is their best bet, or... the Jian-10 can take over... OR a new version of the Jian-11...

The FC-1 IS light and useful, so that can provide the needed requirements of the navy, get backed by some future Jian-11s, that would be great!

Just try using the Jian-8 to effectively use the SD-10 and fire anti-ship missiles... NO! the FC-1 is much better, plus if the Jian-8 IS 20 mil a piece, the FC-1 will save China 5 mil a piece, and isnt upgrading the 27SK to 27SKM only 5 mil a piece? there you go, problem solved... some what... o.0

[MIGleader]

what is the friggin point of FC-1s in the PLAAF, the Jian-10 is heavier and more powerful, the plane is even in service and a single/double seated version already built, and IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, the Jian-10 can fire anti-ship missiles, I mean, that can take place of the FC-1 already, the PLAN needs something cheap and effective, the FC-1 is their best bet, or... the Jian-10 can take over... OR a new version of the Jian-11...

The FC-1 IS light and useful, so that can provide the needed requirements of the navy, get backed by some future Jian-11s, that would be great!

Just try using the Jian-8 to effectively use the SD-10 and fire anti-ship missiles... NO! the FC-1 is much better, plus if the Jian-8 IS 20 mil a piece, the FC-1 will save China 5 mil a piece, and isnt upgrading the 27SK to 27SKM only 5 mil a piece? there you go, problem solved... some what... o.0

chinas's not at a lack for money $$$:D
it needs to concentrate on saving funds for much more avanced weapons and projects that will rival the u.s or europe. the entire concept of a "cheap and huge military" is completely cold war ideology. moder doctrines reflect a need for smaller, more advanced forces.

[swimmerXC]

what is the friggin point of FC-1s in the PLAAF, the Jian-10 is heavier and more powerful, the plane is even in service and a single/double seated version already built, and IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, the Jian-10 can fire anti-ship missiles, I mean, that can take place of the FC-1 already, the PLAN needs something cheap and effective, the FC-1 is their best bet, or... the Jian-10 can take over... OR a new version of the Jian-11...

The FC-1 IS light and useful, so that can provide the needed requirements of the navy, get backed by some future Jian-11s, that would be great!

Just try using the Jian-8 to effectively use the SD-10 and fire anti-ship missiles... NO! the FC-1 is much better, plus if the Jian-8 IS 20 mil a piece, the FC-1 will save China 5 mil a piece, and isnt upgrading the 27SK to 27SKM only 5 mil a piece? there you go, problem solved... some what... o.0

o dear, i think you should run for the chairman of china... then again i'll probably stop you by telling everyone your love of everything japanese :nono:

ok back to topic...
they already have the flankers doing the anti-ship job, whats the point of using something expensive and good like the J-10 for ground attack? might as well get the FC-1 to do the dirty work and the J-10's to act as air cover

[Chairman Hu]

o dear, i think you should run for the chairman of china... then again i'll probably stop you by telling everyone your love of everything japanese :nono:

wtf?! uhhh WTF!?

true on the FC-1 doing the dirty work part... but you have 24 MKK2s doing th naval work, and the JH-7B doing the attack work, why use it in the airforce, better in the navy

[MIGleader]

o dear, i think you should run for the chairman of china... then again i'll probably stop you by telling everyone your love of everything japanese :nono:

ok back to topic...
they already have the flankers doing the anti-ship job, whats the point of using something expensive and good like the J-10 for ground attack? might as well get the FC-1 to do the dirty work and the J-10's to act as air cover

dirty work? please specify.

24 mkk2 flankers really isnt alot, and a flanker is more expensive than a j-10 anyhow. i will agree with u on using the j-10 primarily as an air-fighter, but why does china need fc-1? there is not a single tyask that the fc-1 can perform that cannot be done in an equal or better manner by another plane.
i just dont get y u ppl think a plane designed for cheap export can actually have a role in the plaaf.

baseline: i would rather spend 1 billion bucks to buy 30 j-10 rtather than 40 fc-1.

[chakos]

Depends on the mission really..

As far as replacing some (not all... that would be way too expensive) of the current batch of J-6/7 leftovers from the 60's then i would go the Fc-1. It would go a long way to countering Indias upgraded Mig-21 Bisons as well as Taiwans older fighters.

As far as i am concerned and i am not picking sides here at all, the Indians did a brilliant job of their Mig-21 upgrades and really have no need whatsoever for the LCA anyway.

They have a better range, an advanced radar and as well as that can carry 2 AA-12's and 2 AA-11's. In my eyes this makes them a fantastic light fighter, possibly the best in the region following the advance versions of the F-16 and the Mig-29smt, but then again these fighters are more a medium size fighter than a true light fighter.

The Fc-1 should be given the ability to launch the AA-12 or the SD-10 as it will be able to easily carry 2 short range and 4 medium range missiles (or vice versa) in combat and therefore make it a very capable little aircraft. (As long as they get the avionics fit correct) as the Fc-1 is a very well designed warplane. It is what the Mig-21 and the F-5E should have been, and what the F-20 would have been had it not been cancelled.

For the intercept mission though i would definatelly be considering the J-8 but only if it had more powerful and economic engines so it would have a mutch better rate of climb as well as a large combat radius and time on station.

If that was not achievable i would be buying the licence to the Mig-31 and getting rid of the J-8 altogether.

People forget that the Mig-31 was the one plane the U.S. truly feared in the cold war. More so than the Su-27 or the Mig-29. It has an awesome range, long time on station, a trully effective intercept radar as well as an ability to carry 6 (usually 4 though) AA-9 Amos Long range air to air missiles. This missile has a Mach 4.5 top speed, a 160km range and is able to engage all current aircraft, helicopters and cruise missiles from any altitute. As well as this the Mig-31 can carry AA-12, AA-11 and AA-8 medium and short range missiles.

The other important factor is that the Russians are willing to sell them.. And for relativelly cheaply...

So i say stop wasting time with an inferior competitor of the Phantom thats based on a Mig-19 and start investing money in real effective interceptors.

Id rather 5 squadrons of Mig-31's than 20 squadrons of J-8's of any variant.:coffee:

[MIGleader]

Depends on the mission really..

As far as replacing some (not all... that would be way too expensive) of the current batch of J-6/7 leftovers from the 60's then i would go the Fc-1. It would go a long way to countering Indias upgraded Mig-21 Bisons as well as Taiwans older fighters.

As far as i am concerned and i am not picking sides here at all, the Indians did a brilliant job of their Mig-21 upgrades and really have no need whatsoever for the LCA anyway.

They have a better range, an advanced radar and as well as that can carry 2 AA-12's and 2 AA-11's. In my eyes this makes them a fantastic light fighter, possibly the best in the region following the advance versions of the F-16 and the Mig-29smt, but then again these fighters are more a medium size fighter than a true light fighter.

The Fc-1 should be given the ability to launch the AA-12 or the SD-10 as it will be able to easily carry 2 short range and 4 medium range missiles (or vice versa) in combat and therefore make it a very capable little aircraft. (As long as they get the avionics fit correct) as the Fc-1 is a very well designed warplane. It is what the Mig-21 and the F-5E should have been, and what the F-20 would have been had it not been cancelled.

For the intercept mission though i would definatelly be considering the J-8 but only if it had more powerful and economic engines so it would have a mutch better rate of climb as well as a large combat radius and time on station.

If that was not achievable i would be buying the licence to the Mig-31 and getting rid of the J-8 altogether.

People forget that the Mig-31 was the one plane the U.S. truly feared in the cold war. More so than the Su-27 or the Mig-29. It has an awesome range, long time on station, a trully effective intercept radar as well as an ability to carry 6 (usually 4 though) AA-9 Amos Long range air to air missiles. This missile has a Mach 4.5 top speed, a 160km range and is able to engage all current aircraft, helicopters and cruise missiles from any altitute. As well as this the Mig-31 can carry AA-12, AA-11 and AA-8 medium and short range missiles.

The other important factor is that the Russians are willing to sell them.. And for relativelly cheaply...

So i say stop wasting time with an inferior competitor of the Phantom thats based on a Mig-19 and start investing money in real effective interceptors.

Id rather 5 squadrons of Mig-31's than 20 squadrons of J-8's of any variant.:coffee:

fc-1 is already fitted with sd-10. as for mig-31, it is russia's ace in the hole. itsn ot for sale. if it was, india, china, iran,..would all want it.

[chakos]

China came very close to purchasing the Mig-31 in the early 90's before it settled for the Su-27

It was very much for sale, but at the time China was looking for something a little more multi-role for its limited funds at the time and as such was not interested in spending big on a pure interceptor.

Nowdays its a different story.

[tphuang]

China came very close to purchasing the Mig-31 in the early 90's before it settled for the Su-27

It was very much for sale, but at the time China was looking for something a little more multi-role for its limited funds at the time and as such was not interested in spending big on a pure interceptor.

Nowdays its a different story.
I think Mig-31M is for sale or something. I did a check on foxhound a while back, it did seem like the Russians are willing to sell it. For sure, I'd rather have 1 regiment of Mig-31 than 5 regiments of J-8F.

As for FC-1, I think the thought is to use it against central Asian countries, Mongolia, Vietnam and you know - low countries.

[MIGleader]

I think Mig-31M is for sale or something. I did a check on foxhound a while back, it did seem like the Russians are willing to sell it. For sure, I'd rather have 1 regiment of Mig-31 than 5 regiments of J-8F.

As for FC-1, I think the thought is to use it against central Asian countries, Mongolia, Vietnam and you know - low countries.

china isnt going to have war whit "low countries" any time soon. can u offer proof of mig-31 sale status? i saw one sight that said russia sold 24 to china, but i dont believe it. i especially dont believe the russians would sell a radar as good as the zaslon to any nation.

[tphuang]

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/mig31-01.htm

"MiG-31Eh: Ehksport (export) version for China, proposed 2000, and announced at Zhuhai Air Show 6 November 2000."

[MIGleader]

China came very close to purchasing the Mig-31 in the early 90's before it settled for the Su-27

It was very much for sale, but at the time China was looking for something a little more multi-role for its limited funds at the time and as such was not interested in spending big on a pure interceptor.

Nowdays its a different story.

no, it was the mig-29 or su-27. politics won the sukoi the main deal. the su-27 isnt much more multirole than the mig-31. its just single mission air-superirority fighter.

[adeptitus]

As far as i am concerned and i am not picking sides here at all, the Indians did a brilliant job of their Mig-21 upgrades and really have no need whatsoever for the LCA anyway.
<snip>
If that was not achievable i would be buying the licence to the Mig-31 and getting rid of the J-8 altogether.


IMO the upgraded MiG-21's have good capability, but they're still old aircraft with lots of hours on the airframe. The LCA is, at the very least, brand new and prolly safer to fly than MiG-21's.

As for the PLAAF selection of Su-27 over MiG-31, I think it's a correct decision because the Su-27 is far more widely exported, and has a lot of Russian and 3rd party development going for it. The same could be said for MiG-29, but not the MiG-31.

[Chairman Hu]

chinas's not at a lack for money $$$:D
it needs to concentrate on saving funds for much more avanced weapons and projects that will rival the u.s or europe. the entire concept of a "cheap and huge military" is completely cold war ideology. moder doctrines reflect a need for smaller, more advanced forces.

nah thats not what I meant, I know China doesnt lack money, im just saying that China can use that money in a better way... :D

Yea i know cheap and huge military is the past, like Mao's doctrine of "THE PEOPLE'S WAR" is pretty obsolete too, China should take the FC-1 instead of the Jian-8 is the same reason what you said... ---> moder doctrines reflect a need for smaller, more advanced forces. ---> the FC-1 has more fighting capabilities and already builting for export, look at the weapons that the FC-1 can use and not the Jian-8, isnt that a good enough explaination?

If that was not achievable i would be buying the licence to the MiG-31 and getting rid of the J-8 altogether.

Sure why not, the MiG-31 has a powerful radar and can band together to track, and a license is better than just purchase, since a copy can fire Chinese weapons, the MiG-31 can also can roam and loiter in the skies and in case of a future war against any country, those things with their LRAAMs can take out bombers or even slow transport planes, they are modernized interceptors and they can wipe out incoming drones and such, if they cant, get a modernized version, itz always good to have a Mach2.8+ plane to go into speedy interceptions, since they DO have their powerful radar to back themselves up.

As for the PLAAF selection of Su-27 over MiG-31, I think it's a correct decision because the Su-27 is far more widely exported, and has a lot of Russian and 3rd party development going for it. The same could be said for MiG-29, but not the MiG-31.

and your point? China only needs like 24-48 of them... they are tactical planes, like the MiG-25(Version D) and the SR-71, they have a specific role and their numbers are limited due to their task, a license copy lets China to modify and solve the "problems" that China might have, such as weaponry

[MIGleader]

nah thats not what I meant, I know China doesnt lack money, im just saying that China can use that money in a better way... :D

Yea i know cheap and huge military is the past, like Mao's doctrine of "THE PEOPLE'S WAR" is pretty obsolete too, China should take the FC-1 instead of the Jian-8 is the same reason what you said... ---> ---> the FC-1 has more fighting capabilities and already builting for export, look at the weapons that the FC-1 can use and not the Jian-8, isnt that a good enough explaination?

you kinda missed my point...the fc-1 may be superior to the j-8(which is true), but both fighters are unnecassery. the fc-1 represents a cheap, capable fighter capacble of being produced in large #'s. such a concept is indeed "people's war" ideology. just like the type 59 and ak-47. g2g...il ad more later.

[Chairman Hu]

no no i use kinda misunderstood it...

well when it comes to "you dont need both" you kinda do, I mean, especially in the navy, sometimes itz good to have a load of cheap and efficient goods, I mean I rather have 4 FC-1s to sink a destroyer or something than have a destroyer.

Now we are in a discussion on WHEN is the cheap large army style needed

[sumdud]

The J-8 flies faster, higher, and farther than the FC-1, but it has not the agility or manuverbility. (What's the difference between agility and manuverbility?)
We can't really compare radar abilities, though, since FC-1 have radar options.
But since it's J-8F, you can be pretty sure the J-8F has a better radar performance.

As for the 20 million cost, yea right.
The FC-1 has a lower operating cost, but as for reliability, I wouldn't count on it yet. China has already been operating J-8Bs, so it's much more pilot-friendly. Also, FC-1 is a new plane, and new planes will face problems that will need to be fixed.

But China should buy the J-8F for 2 reasons:
1. it's familiar.
2. it's a great combo with the J-7. (Like the Hurricanes and Spitfires!)
And unless you retire both J-7 and J-8, it isn't worth it to get FC-1s.
The J-8F is enough for China's defence.

And BTW, you can't bomb ships with LGBs anymore. ;)

Nice comparison with the IDF by the way.
PRC:FC-1::ROC:IDF::India:LCA

[crobato]

I think China will concentrate heavily on J-10/J-11, along with a smattering of JH-7A and FC-1. I have not seen a lot of J-7G built or even of regimental conversions. The same with J-8F/H. It seems new aircraft are few and regiment conversions are just as few. It should be noted that China probably has close to 300 Flankers of all types now, while the number of J-8II of all types could be 300 to 400, and J-7E/G is probably just over 300. The amount of the older aircraft is less than most people think.

What we are going to see more is that the J-8Ds will all be converted to the radar used on the J-8F/H. There is probably six to eight of these regiments, along with 2 regiments of -H and one regiment of -F. Converting the Ds will be much faster and gain better numbers. After the -Ds are converted, they may probably focus on converting the -Bs with lower flight hours, or the -Bs that were converted earlier to D's.

[utelore]

No, the J-8 is not a modern fighter. The PRC should sink cash into more J-10 and J-11 upgrade program. I also believe the fielding of its new attack Helocopter is a MUST. Imagine that russian aircraft carrier operating off the coast of ROC with 40+ attack helos for close airsupport missions

[ahho]

do you guys think that the j-8 was meant for a stop gap program until china got the flankers???

Also, why didn't China design any twin engine multirole fighter??

small question: does bigger and twin engine means you can fly farther due to bigger fuel tank and saver for flying over the sea??

[vincelee]

two engined fighters are inherently perferred for naval applications because you can still limp back to base if one of your engines die. They also tend to be bigger, thus the increased fuel load. However, a twin engined fighter does not necessarily have greater range, look at the MiG-29 for example. It all depends on the design. The Flanker has a ridiculous amount of fuel capacity, in fact, it CAN'T carry external fuels. But it comes at the cost of agility. Despite the much touted Flanker super agility, it flies like a pig until half to 2/3 of the fuel is gone.

[tphuang]

do you guys think that the j-8 was meant for a stop gap program until china got the flankers???

Also, why didn't China design any twin engine multirole fighter??

small question: does bigger and twin engine means you can fly farther due to bigger fuel tank and saver for flying over the sea??
you can expect future Chinese fighters to be twin engined multirole type, because China is concerned about the reliability of single engined fighters.

bigger engine == more thrust, larger payload/fuel

[jatt]

two engined fighters are inherently perferred for naval applications because you can still limp back to base if one of your engines die. They also tend to be bigger, thus the increased fuel load. However, a twin engined fighter does not necessarily have greater range, look at the MiG-29 for example. It all depends on the design. The Flanker has a ridiculous amount of fuel capacity, in fact, it CAN'T carry external fuels. But it comes at the cost of agility. Despite the much touted Flanker super agility, it flies like a pig until half to 2/3 of the fuel is gone.
Agreed exept it only flies like a pig when doeing those showcase manevuers. High speed combat performance is pretty damn good. Cope India anyone?

[adeptitus]

do you guys think that the j-8 was meant for a stop gap program until china got the flankers???
Also, why didn't China design any twin engine multirole fighter??
small question: does bigger and twin engine means you can fly farther due to bigger fuel tank and saver for flying over the sea??

@_@ Wow this is an old thread. LoL

On subject of Shenyang J-8, I'd refer you to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-8
The plane's design began in 1964 and is the first Chinese plane to be designed and built indigenously. Despite design beginning in 1964 it was not produced until 1979 and it entered service in 1980. Its basic frame is an enlargement of the MiG-21...

The original J-8 development started long before the Flankers existed. It was an attempt to build an advanced jet fighter after the Sino-Soviet split. Regardless of actual capability, it gave the ROCAF a scare and kickstarted the IDF project.

As for the twin engine question, I'm not an aircraft engineer but can give this observation -- most long range strike aircraft have 2 crews and 2 engines. So I'd deduce that the engineers think it's more efficient that way than to build a bigger single-engine aircraft.

[ahho]

well that is true that j-8 was long ago thought it was a success IMO when they developed on their own with j-7 as a reference.

The thing is, at the time frame when fc-1 and j-10 started, how come there were no twin engine in design proposal? Was it because there was no twin engine to fighter that they could aquired to base on or they weren't needed.

[MIGleader]

do you guys think that the j-8 was meant for a stop gap program until china got the flankers???

Also, why didn't China design any twin engine multirole fighter??

small question: does bigger and twin engine means you can fly farther due to bigger fuel tank and saver for flying over the sea??

of course not. in the 1960s, when j8 was first concieved, china and russia were bitter enemies. the last thing on maos mind was buying russian aircraft. besides, the flanker did not even exist until the late 1970's.

a twin engine gives more range, whcih is why u never see a single mission aircraft conductiong strike. seeing how china had a defensive "peoples war" in mind, an offensive aircraft would not be needed.

[adeptitus]

well that is true that j-8 was long ago thought it was a success IMO when they developed on their own with j-7 as a reference.
The thing is, at the time frame when fc-1 and j-10 started, how come there were no twin engine in design proposal? Was it because there was no twin engine to fighter that they could aquired to base on or they weren't needed.

Well, technically J-8-II was developed around the same time, and that's twin engined. =/ But yeah, all the others (J-9, FC-1, J-10, J-13) were all single engined.

I think the most advanced fighter that the PRC had imported during that period (1970's?) was couple of MiG-23's from Egypt, that's a single engined aircraft too.

[sumdud]

J-13 single engined?!
Double engined fighters have 1 big advantage:
you can make a big, heavy weight fighter/bomber
or you can still make a short ASF.
But you can't build a heavy-weight fighter with only one engine.
If the engines are big, it actually helps with design for strike, since your plane is now going to be very big.

I don't really think China should go for too much on J-11.

As for the thread, how much does a J-8-2(any J-8B variants) cost? (in USD)

[adeptitus]

J-13 single engined?!
<snip>
As for the thread, how much does a J-8-2(any J-8B variants) cost? (in USD)

The old J-13:
http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/chinese_fighter_development/chinese_fighter_development-6.html

J-13: The genesis of the J-13 plan was in 1971 when the 601 Institute began researching a new fighter aircraft for the 1980s to replace the J-6. In early 1974 the PLAAF formally proposed development of a new light fighter to replace the J-6 as the mainstay of the Air Force. As with many Chinese fighter projects, the principal sticking point was the lack of a suitable powerplant for the aircraft. In order to meet a required Mach 2.0 level speed, the original plan was to use one British Spey Mk202 turbofan (with afterburner giving 9,300kg thrust) domestically produced as the WS-9.

As for J-8-II's unit cost, it has been speculated at $15-$25 million each. There's so many variants and equipment it's hard to say, plus there has been no export sales to gauage pricing.

Sometimes I see the price estimaes that are so off the deep end it's scary. Take this article for an example:
http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showthread.php?t=1279

It claims the FTC-2000 has a fly-away unit cost of only $2.4 million USD. I think, realistically, if a customer like Nigeria went to China and wanted to buy a few, we know it's going to cost them a lot more than $2.4 million each. =/

[tphuang]

There is no way J-8II can cost that much. J-10 only costs 25 million each. A few things to consider are: 1. plaaf pays 10% on top of the fly away cost for the indigenous fighters 2. exported ones obviously cost a lot more. The deal to Nigeria probably included a lot more than just fighters. I'd say a J-8II probably would cost no more than 12 million for plaaf. The current upgrades dones on J-8B probably is quite cheap too. FC-1 was mentionned to be 10 million for plaaf on Chinese forums(I'm not kidding here). That's why I find it hilarious that people think FC-1 can't be as cheap as 15 million for export.

[MIGleader]

any ftc-2000 deal to nigeria would involve real missles, captive training missles, dummy missles, spares, technicians, chinese trainers, and more like an economic deal too. thats why its worth more than 2.4 million.

[sumdud]

J-8B costing 25 million. -.-"""""""""""""""
I still don't trust it........
12 million is still reasonable. It's an old piece of steel....
Should not be that much. As for avonics. I doubt it's such a big cost too.

If J-8B is 25 million, China would be churning out J-10s quickly.

How much does the J-7 cost? I would guess the cost of J-8B is between that of J-7 and FC-1. China never declare the buying of FC-1s. If the J-8B costed more than 10 million dollars(original price of FC-1), China would've said they'd buy FC-1s.

FTC-2000 costing only 2.4 million dollars?! If that's true, there would be a lot of sales from both inside and outside. And I would not really be supposed at the price. J-7, which the plane is derived from, costed less than 10 million dollars. (I remember seeing it said 3.3, or was that the generation?)
-----------
JH-7A, FC-1, JL-9, and A-5. Do you guys see some sort of resemblence between each other?

[ahho]

JH-7A, FC-1, JL-9, and A-5. Do you guys see some sort of resemblence between each other?

what are the resemblance??? is it the price or they look like migs (i know all of them does look a bit alike but not jh-7a)


Sumdud:
Hope you don't mind me replying here. :)
I mean the shape. FC-1 and JL-9 looks like twins at 1st glance.

ah yes, they do look alike in shape

[crazyinsane105]

Well, many people here seem to prefer the J-8 series over the FC-1. I prefer the FC-1 because it incorporates new designs like the DSI and the enlarged wing span similar to that of the Superhornet. Also, the FC-1 is going under more major design configurations as well. Best part of this: the FC-1 has yet to come out and the J-8 series has been experimented and exhausted with. If China had no interest in aquiring the FC-1, then we wouldn't see large amounts of improvements on the FC-1. The Chinese and Pakistanis are doing much work on the FC-1 plus the Pakistani JF-17 will most likely have the Thales RC-400 radar system in the future (look at www.jf-17.com). In my opinion, the FC-1 is a relatively new platform that can incorporate new technologies so that's why the FC-1 should be the next PLAAF and PLAN platform.

[crobato]

To understand the logic and disadvantage of the J-8II you have to look at this.

If you need to output a certain large amount of X thrust, its more economical and cheaper to do it with one large engine rather than two. Reliablity and redundancy issues aside (one engine fails, another engine brings the aircraft home) the reason why one single large engine is more efficient is because it has 50% less moving parts than two smaller engines producing the same amount of thrust total. This means better fuel economy and overall lower cost of the plane and lower cost of maintenance since you got less parts to fix. It also means you get your aircraft out from repairs faster and into the air, since you have less parts to break too.

With this, you can understand why a plane like the JSF has one engine.

But on the other hand why two?

Well, mainly because developing one large super thrust engine is lot more diffficult than one smaller, weaker thrust engine which you can pair into two. With far less technological resources, it's better to put two engines you already have a technological mastery upon to produce the same thrust, rather than that one single big engine. You have to understand the failures of Chinese turbine engine development to fully understand this, since originally, the attempt to reverse engineer the powerful R-27/29 engine of the MiG-23 ended up in failure. One engine like that produces as much thrust as two of the WP-7s based on the MiG-21's Tumanskies. Ultimately that's where the J-9 went down since it was concieved with that one single large engine in mind, and so did the original J-13 concepts. While it was much more technically feasible to put two WP-7s engines together and produce the same amount of thrust. Hence why the J-8 survived.

[Indianfighter]

The FC-1 has not recieved interest from China, as much as the J-10 project.
The FC-1 project was revived upon the insistence of Pakistan and Pakistan's financial help to the project.

If one looks at the specifications, the FC-1 and J-10 are on the lower and upper limits tending to F-16:

i.e. Lim F-16->0- = FC-1 and Lim F-16->0+ = J-10.

Thus, the FC-1 may be utilized for export purposes by China, whereas the J-10 shall be kept for operation in the PLAAF.

Now, the DSI intakes of the FC-1 were a compulsion rather than a developmental improvement, since the T/W ratio without the DSI intakes was 0.93. Thus, the FC-1 would not have been able to climb vertically.
In comparison, the T/W ratio of the LCA is >1 without special intakes.

The J-10 is thus likely to be developed more with the addition of the AESA radars etc., while the development of the FC-1 shall be ceased upon the solving of the problems of stability.

Hence, it is unlikely that either the J-8 or FC-1 shall be developed any further.
The development of the J-10 and J-xx are likely to recieve priority by China.

[adeptitus]

Hence, it is unlikely that either the J-8 or FC-1 shall be developed any further.


o_O;; Considering how many different variations of J-7 and J-8 we've seen, I think it's most likely that we'd see even more "improved vairants" for J-8-II and FC-1 in the future. I mean, look at JH-7 vs. JH-7A.

I'm expecting to see FC-17A/B/C/D/E/F/G over the next 2 decades.

[sumdud]

Well, neither the engine of the FC-1 nor LCA is out. The ones flying now are using engines that aren't available by mass. So I wouldn't say so much about T/W ratio yet. The WS-13, said to be a replacement/copy(not really sure) and improvement over RD-93, isn't ready yet, and neither is the short-breathed Kaveri(which appears to have failed high-attitude tests, maybe a bigger, lower intake? The Su-27 and Mig-29's advantage in high AOA are under their under-intakes.)

But what'd you mean about stability of FC-1? It is suppose to receive a FBW, even though it will control only the tail apparently.
But the FC-1 is receiving improvements as we speak, but since it has not been inputted yet, They did not count them as different variants. And apparently no extra cost.

The J-8B has already so many upgrades, and I believe that it will not worth it to stop now. If we give it one more upgrade, it will probably be nearly as capable as the JH-7 or J-10, being able to launch definitely PL-12, most likely YJ-31, and maybe C-80X. It has space(with its low enough wing) for from what looks like 9 hp, or 7 w/ MLU. A FBW(don't know about the wing fences) might improve its manuverbility(especially for the tail, since it's a large and long craft.) And being an easy, friendly aircraft w/ excellent landing and take off performances, it might be a pretty good trainer.

[crazyinsane105]

The FC-1 is a relatively new platform for China. This means that Chinese engineers will be able to put all sorts of new upgrades on the FC-1. Point is, the FC-1 is a new, unmatured platform that has much potential while the J-8, although being capable of having more upgrades, is a tired platform. However, in the eyes of the PLAAF, does the PLAAF want to stick with proven technologies or risk induction of new tech? As we have seen before, the PLAAF usually would go with proven tech (which is why the MKK's don't have TVC nor do they have canards, but since the Indian MKI's turned out to be successful, China seems to be pursuing TVC and canards for the J-10). In my opinion, the J-8 would be the main platform for the PLAAF for some time to come until Pakistan or another country can prove that the FC-1 fullfills China's requirements (for example, Pakistan could incorportate new tech in the FC-1 and thereby soothe Chinese concerns).

[Sea Dog]

The J-8B has already so many upgrades, and I believe that it will not worth it to stop now. If we give it one more upgrade, it will probably be nearly as capable as the JH-7 or J-10, being able to launch definitely PL-12, most likely YJ-31, and maybe C-80X. It has space(with its low enough wing) for from what looks like 9 hp, or 7 w/ MLU. A FBW(don't know about the wing fences) might improve its manuverbility(especially for the tail, since it's a large and long craft.) And being an easy, friendly aircraft w/ excellent landing and take off performances, it might be a pretty good trainer.

This sums it up real good. The J-8 so far has proven to be upgradeable in many ways. It's quite remarkable what PLAAF has done with this particular aircraft. And you're right, with the right upgrades (avionics packages), it can have the same kind of an impact as J-10 or JH-7. The cost and inception of the FC-1 may not be something that China is interested in at this time. From what I understand, China's main focus right now is completing work on J-10 and JH-7 as newly integrated tactical aircraft. Upgrades for the J-8 therefore makes alot of sense.

[tphuang]

Well, neither the engine of the FC-1 nor LCA is out. The ones flying now are using engines that aren't available by mass. So I wouldn't say so much about T/W ratio yet. The WS-13, said to be a replacement/copy(not really sure) and improvement over RD-93, isn't ready yet, and neither is the short-breathed Kaveri(which appears to have failed high-attitude tests, maybe a bigger, lower intake? The Su-27 and Mig-29's advantage in high AOA are under their under-intakes.)

But what'd you mean about stability of FC-1? It is suppose to receive a FBW, even though it will control only the tail apparently.
But the FC-1 is receiving improvements as we speak, but since it has not been inputted yet, They did not count them as different variants. And apparently no extra cost.

The J-8B has already so many upgrades, and I believe that it will not worth it to stop now. If we give it one more upgrade, it will probably be nearly as capable as the JH-7 or J-10, being able to launch definitely PL-12, most likely YJ-31, and maybe C-80X. It has space(with its low enough wing) for from what looks like 9 hp, or 7 w/ MLU. A FBW(don't know about the wing fences) might improve its manuverbility(especially for the tail, since it's a large and long craft.) And being an easy, friendly aircraft w/ excellent landing and take off performances, it might be a pretty good trainer.
Well, I'd think that very few J-8IIs are getting produced right now. Most of the the J-8F/H that you are seeing are actually upgrades from J-8B and J-8D. Basically, any J-8 that can be upgraded is getting upgraded, because it's firely easy to do so. I don't think anything will improve the manuverability of J-8. It's role is a high-speed interceptor or a bomb truck.

PLAAF's order of FC-1 could well be dependent on the number of exports of FC-1. I believe that if not enough FC-1 are getting exported, plaaf will order more to lower the cost of FC-1.

[crazyinsane105]

Here is some very interesting news regarding the JF-17's radar:

Finmeccanica Eyes U.K. E-scan Technology for New Radar
12/30/05 05:34
By TOM KINGTON, ROME

Finmeccanica is mulling an updated version of its Grifo airborne radar with electronically scanned array technology, according to Renzo Meschini, chief executive officer (CEO) of Finmeccanica unit Galileo Avionica.

The Grifo — 450 of which have been sold by Galileo Avionica — could be updated with e-scan technologies developed by former BAE SYSTEMS units that Finmeccanica has taken over in the United Kingdom, Meschini told reporters on Dec. 21.

Finmeccanica this year took a 75 percent stake in a new company, Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems (S&AS), which contains the former BAE avionics units and its own avionics arm, Galileo Avionica. BAE holds a 25 percent stake.

Meschini said the new radar, which would equip medium-sized fighter aircraft, is among the first examples of product synergies mulled by the new Anglo-Italian entity, and would be followed in January by Selex S&AS’s first joint budget.

“This document — which will plan ahead to 2008 — will contain the first cost and procurement savings, joint products and enhanced sales projections deriving from the synergies created through the creation of Selex S&AS,” he said.


Considering PAF-Galileo relations over the past decade along with the future potential that the Grifo 7 radar will be the radar for the JF-17, PAF will probably be able to get AESA tech for its JF-17's. That alone should increase the export potential of the JF-17.

[RedMercury]

Well, one other thing to consider is sunk costs. The cost of R&D for J8* is sunk, it cannot be recovered, a sound economic decision would only be based on what more you need to pay in the future (of course, this could also include higher maintenance due to cruder design, etc), while the development of the FC1 is not yet complete, so more money needs to be put in to get a usable result.

So how do you specify the prices of aircraft? If you count the total cost of R&D (amortized per airframe), infrastructure, training, materials, assembly, maintenance versus just materials, assembly, and maintenance, you'll get different numbers. The total, amortized cost of the J8 could well be equivalent to $25mil USD in today's USD, because most of the costs were paid in the past, when resources were far more scarce and considering inflation. But considering that most of that is sunk, a new J8* airframe might cost significantly less, it might be actually quite a bargain for it's capability with the newest avionics. As a fast, high-altitude interceptor firing BVRAAMs and then running away, it still might have role in modern doctrine.:nana:

[PiSigma]

welcome to the forum redmercury, i like your analysis. are you are economics/business major?? anywayz please introduce yourself in the introduction thread in the members club section. and read the rules

[crobato]

Well, one other thing to consider is sunk costs. The cost of R&D for J8* is sunk, it cannot be recovered, a sound economic decision would only be based on what more you need to pay in the future (of course, this could also include higher maintenance due to cruder design, etc), while the development of the FC1 is not yet complete, so more money needs to be put in to get a usable result.

So how do you specify the prices of aircraft? If you count the total cost of R&D (amortized per airframe), infrastructure, training, materials, assembly, maintenance versus just materials, assembly, and maintenance, you'll get different numbers. The total, amortized cost of the J8 could well be equivalent to $25mil USD in today's USD, because most of the costs were paid in the past, when resources were far more scarce and considering inflation. But considering that most of that is sunk, a new J8* airframe might cost significantly less, it might be actually quite a bargain for it's capability with the newest avionics. As a fast, high-altitude interceptor firing BVRAAMs and then running away, it still might have role in modern doctrine.:nana:

You might as well build J-10s instead for the same cost. The plane appears to be smaller, lighter, uses more composite materials, less material cost. Since China already paid for the development of the J-10, they might as well use it. I kind of like the J-8II in a retro way, something about the way it looks funks me up more than more modern jets but it is old and it is time to move on.

It may be fast for a fighter of its technological generation, maybe against F-5s, MiG-21s or F-4s, but it's not fast enough against most modern fighters like F-16s and F-15s to escape, while lacking the maneuverbility to fight them in WVR ranges. Although the radar is generously sized, the plane is not stealthy enough to escape attention in BVR engagements. Basically all it can do is search, detect, shoot BVRAAMs, maybe make a pass to shoot some PL-8s, then run away.

As it is said before, few brand new J-8II airframes are being produced now, possibly just attrition replacement. There are only few regiments being converted to the new standard, I can only count two for the J-8H and still mixed with J-8Ds with that, and only one for the J-8F. The focus is mainly on upgrading those airframes with the most flight hours yet to fire ARH missiles like the PL-12. That gives the plane a new threat level, but its only a reason to upgrade old planes, but not enough to make new ones.

[RedMercury]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. There's just something about the lines of that plane. It's sexy in a retro way :)
Again, how much the J-10 costs per airframe, the quote price of $25mil USD is likely full amortized cost instead of materials and construction. Though it is smaller and more composite, I suspect it is more complicated. But then again it has one engine versus two.

The doctrine I suggested would try to avoid all WVR engagements. It doesn't have to be strictly faster than the opponent to do that. As long as it has a head start it could retreat to reinforcements or ground based air defense. It's speed is more for avoiding the NEZ of retaliatory BVRAAMS. The opponent going all out to chase it down might just find itself in an ambush, by more J-8s launching BVRAAMs from the flank and then running away, etc.

And agility also depends on the context. At higher altitudes and faster speeds, for which the J8 is optimized, it may be more agile than newer fighters. It all depends on the specific situation.

About production... I think you're probably on the mark. Though the capabilities of the new F variant may extend its usefulness awhile longer. Another consideration is the production line. If they close it completely, it would cost a lot to restart it if the need ever arose, so they may keep it at low rate production until something decisively better comes along, or while they develop even more updated variants.

[crobato]

I think the J-8II is more agile at higher altitudes. The wing loading seems less than that of a J-7 and should help in that. The J-8II should also rely more on vertical maneuvers like yoyos, as opposed to turning horizontally. If the plane has HMS and wide offbore missiles, you can rely less on maneuverability to acquire a firing zone on the target.

I would think one of the best strategies with the J-8II would be to follow it up with a wave of J-7s. The BVR attacks from the J-8IIs would force the opposition to maneuver and evade the missiles causing them to lose energy and position. The J-8IIs would also draw the BVR fire away from the J-7s. As the J-8IIs break off, the J-7s would be jumping over the opposition in WVR ranges. The J-8IIs would move some distance away then attempt another firing pass.

I do agree that the J-8IIs would be in low rate production just to keep the assembly line in case of other circumstances. Until something better comes along which may be soon, and that may be the J-11Bs