Probably their high speed and great acceleration makes them suitable for such role.
Let's talk about the J-8II
- Thread starter F40Racer
- Start date
Probably their high speed and great acceleration makes them suitable for such role.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Speed and acceleration are useful but hardly essential for SEAD, not many dedicated EW attackers were known for their speed or acceleration, and many, like the famous EA6 were not even supersonic.
What almost all dedicated EW aircraft were known for were their endurance and carrying capacity, features the J8II is not well endowned with.
You want good endurance because odds are the enemy are not going to be so obliging as to light their radars waiting to be ARMed, so you ideally want Wild Weseal birds overhead all the time so whenever a hostile radar lights up, you have assets on hand ready to take them out.
You want good carrying capacity because unless you go for a substantial airframe modification to embed all the dedicated EW systems in the aircraft itself, you need to be lugging big EW pods on top of your ARM complement. And that's just the bare minimum. Ideally you would also want a pair of short range missiles for self defence and also some drop tanks. The J8II simply lack the hardpoints needed to carry all those loads, it can barely manage the minimal pods plus ARM package.
I think the J8II would be fine carrying a pair of A2G stand off missiles and can fill a niche role as a quick response striker against high value targets that require an extra short kill cycle, so for example, if you equip the fast J8II with a pair of even faster CM400AKGs, you can drastically cut the kill cycle compared to a JH7A with KD88s for example. The Cm400 does have an ARM function, which may be where the wild Weseal claims came from, but I think the J8 upgrade would primarily be to give them stand off A2G capacity, with SEAD a possibility because of the missiles being integrated rather than because the J8 was being specifically modified for SEAD or DEAD roles.
In any case, if the PLAAF is giving J8IIs a ground attack capacity after all these years, I think the primary reason would be to give these still new airframes a purpose now that the J8II has been displaced from its traditional interceptor/air superiority role by the far more capable J10s and J11s rather than because the J8 is particularly suited to the role.
Quickie
Colonel
How many of the J-8s are fitted with refuelling probe?
According to the wiki, the combat range of the J-8, and by default the ferry range, is almost double the J-10.
Maybe it's not that surprising since the J-8 at 21.52 m is much larger than the J-10 and comparable to the flanker.
J-8: Combat radius: with 5 min Combat : 540 nm (1,000 km) (incl 5 min combat (Air to ground) : 486 nm (900 km)
J-10A: Combat radius: 550 km (without air to air refueling), 1,600 km (with air to air refueling)
According to the wiki, the combat range of the J-8, and by default the ferry range, is almost double the J-10.
Maybe it's not that surprising since the J-8 at 21.52 m is much larger than the J-10 and comparable to the flanker.J-8: Combat radius: with 5 min Combat : 540 nm (1,000 km) (incl 5 min combat (Air to ground) : 486 nm (900 km)
J-10A: Combat radius: 550 km (without air to air refueling), 1,600 km (with air to air refueling)
I find both of those numbers hard to believe.
And considering both J-10 and J-8 have similar MTOW, and more fuel efficient turbofans versus turbojets, and more modern aerodynamics, the numbers do look faulty. Certainly a 1000km combat radii for J-8II looks ridiculous
And considering both J-10 and J-8 have similar MTOW, and more fuel efficient turbofans versus turbojets, and more modern aerodynamics, the numbers do look faulty. Certainly a 1000km combat radii for J-8II looks ridiculous
SinoSoldier
Colonel
How many of the J-8s are fitted with refuelling probe?
According to the wiki, the combat range of the J-8, and by default the ferry range, is almost double the J-10.
J-8: Combat radius: with 5 min Combat : 540 nm (1,000 km) (incl 5 min combat (Air to ground) : 486 nm (900 km)
J-10A: Combat radius: 550 km (without air to air refueling), 1,600 km (with air to air refueling)
According to huitong its ferry range is 3200 km and its combat radius without refueling is 1100 km
Quickie
Colonel
Sorry, "its ferry range" is referring to which aircraft?
Edit: Nevermind, I think it should be J-10A.
Last edited:
Skywatcher
Captain
A J-8II can't carry much for an attack role, but its high speed means it could throw GPS guided glide bombs a pretty long distance, which would be good for any DPRK/ROC/Vietnam contingency.
Is there any possibility that J-8 wild weasle and ground attack versions might be capable of being flown unmanned? I am thinking it makes sense to use unmanned J-8 in these roles even if the airframe isn't best suited simply because J-8 airframe is good enough and expendable? It would be a shame to covert more valuable airframes for one shot unmanned missions.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
The Q5s are even more 'expendable and China has lots of them. They can probably turn those into missile carrying drones as well
plawolf
Lieutenant General
What's the point in converting a J8II into an UCAV when China could just build a brand new UCAV for a fraction of the cost with far more capacity and none of the baggage of converting a manned platform?
Even if you did convert J8s into unmanned wild weasels, it would also be pointless and stupid to send such expensive assets on suicide runs when again, you can use far cheaper dedicated UCAVs for such roles.
The only use for unmanned J8s is as target drones, but we are a long way off from that time.
Even if you did convert J8s into unmanned wild weasels, it would also be pointless and stupid to send such expensive assets on suicide runs when again, you can use far cheaper dedicated UCAVs for such roles.
The only use for unmanned J8s is as target drones, but we are a long way off from that time.