PLAAF JZ8F first picture

But electronic SA do you mean mostly the RWR? What else would make the Chinese SA much worse?

goldenpanda said:

But electronic SA do you mean mostly the RWR? What else would make the Chinese SA much worse?

Click to expand...

Well, they were bad because Chinese electronic industries can not produce the needed EQP. From IFF to RWR, to PD radar, to HUD, to the idea of HOTAS, to intel on enemy radar, missile frequencies ( so your flare, chaff can be designed to counter them). We have not counted the AWACS, link 16 capabilities, All these get you the SA you needed for a pilot, some of these EQP will make your life easier( such as HOTAS, HUD) others will safe your life and help you shootdown the enemy. Only in the last 5 years or so, PLAAF pilots began en mass to enjoy better SA in the air as compares to more advanced AFs have done for well over 30 years. Now you can read many stories on the PLAAF giving the pilots ( or group leader) the power to make on the spot decisions, because of the better SA capabilities they now enjoy. But all these new ways of thinking will take time.

Problems with HUD, HOTAS, and radar intel were surprise to me. It's really incredible to have neglected these things.

goldenpanda said:

Hehe it isn't so much cheating really. I hear the 2D screen even gives real life pilots difficulty. Windows has good multiple monitor support though, and I'd love to see the next combatsim use them. I have 3 monitors and I have used them with MS Flight simulator. It sure makes landings a lot better. Would be even better if my monitors matched!

Can't quite understand why lack of doppler shift would pose such a problem for the radar. You're still getting the doppler return, wouldn't you just compute the relative radial speed as zero?

Click to expand...

If it hits zero, you can lose lock. However this does not really work well against continous wave illumination, if you are already illuminated this way so the notch tactics has to occur while you are being tracked. Beam maneuver also includes diving down vertically. If the attacker's radar is pointed to the ground, it faces ground clutter. causing a drop in tracking range, and the attacker can lose his target. This is also a problem with active radar seekers by the way, their range of detection and track is lower when they're faced to the ground than they are up.

JZ8F seems like a cool aircraft. I hear they've made some J-6's into UAV's. What about this plane then? Especially considering its "bait" mission.

Click to expand...

J-6 UAVs are probably used as target practice for live exercises. As kamekaze drones, UAVs based on legacy aircraft is not as efficient as cruise missiles built from the ground up, because you have to restore and maintain the legacy jet.

If its about SAM bait to get SAM radars to light up, I guess that is also a valid tactic. In that case, the planes are used like the Harpy drones.

beijingcar said:

"If there is a second sensor, my guess is that it is the same as yours, for radar signature collection and location. These aircraft will attempt to buzz SAM defense sites to try to get them to activate"
I based on the yellow spot between the camera windows and the translucent front of that sensor on this JZ8F's belly to think there is at least one more sensor besides the camera.
As for M2000 Vs J8F, on paper, the only advantage the M2000 has is FBW system, but if the jet is used as high altitude, fast interceptor, then with or without FBW means little. From head on, the M2000 may have a smaller RCS compared to J8F, that is why I said it all rest on J8IIF's radar capabilities. Overall, in the days before J10 and J11B, Chinese jets were very very bad for giving the pilots any SA ( situation awareness) information ( Be it electronic or visual) so in a way, M2000 is generations ahead of older J8II in this regard. Let's just hope the newer J8IIF willl correct some of this deficiencies from electronic stand point.

Click to expand...

J-8F going against M2000 in close range would be very disadvantageous for the J-8F. The M2000 is a very nimble plane, and the J-8F should take a shot of opportunity then try to bat out of there. Having coordinated 2 on 2 or 2 on 1 tactics is vital as well.

I don't think the visibility of the J-8II from the cockpit is that good either, with the back spine and the pilot having to sit low on a narrow cockpit. It does not appear to have that the plane has a good view of the back and towards the low side.

As for HUD, they were introduced to the PLAAF through the F-7M, and through this, the J-7M (J-7IIB). First as a foreign import from the West, but quickly developed into indigenous design. By the nineties, even J-7E and all the J-8IIs have HUD. Earlier J-8I and J-7s were upgraded to that.

We don't much of the PLAAF SA before J-10, it probably wasn't good, though we expect it to have improved incrementally in the nineties. The AEW and C31 aspects however, are nothing to scoof about because the PLAAF seems to be quite effective in intercepting various interlopers. In 1994, two J-6s buzzed the Kitty Hawk which was trailing a Han class sub, and it was done well out of the loiter range of the J-6s. Apparently somehow, the sub managed to communicate coordinates to the J-6s which didn't even loiter to search.

I suspect before the "modern" PLAAF, the PLAAF heavily relies on the GCI, or ground control based interception. What they lack in terms of onboard SA, they make it up, classic Soviet style, through a network of ground based sensors passing data and instructions to the fighters. However the Soviet system is based on intercept, and treats the pilot basically as a nonautonomous drone. The pilot simply follows orders, and the basic mission routine is to take off, follow the instructions to the target, fire missile, come back home. Anything else is superflous. Of course the brainwork is being done on the ground, kind of like a person playing an RTS game, where the ground controllers have the overall picture, and are using strategies to concentrate forces, ambush the enemy missions, then run away, like an airborne guerilla battle. When your pilots is not as well trained as the opponents, its not a good idea to hang out and go toe to toe, despite the MiGs being maneuverable and all. The MiGs also have limited fuel, so it was better to go home than attempt to dogfight with limited fuel resources.

The J-8s were probably concieved along that principle, along the same lines of the similar Su-15 Flagon.

BAck in Vietnam, this system of interception actually works very well so long no one touched the GCI network. The Americans didn't want to risk Russian and Chinese adviser casualties and risk escalation of war. But if the GCI network is attacked, it can be very disastrous to those who use it.

I think for the Russians, this began to change with the MiG-29 and Su-27. Design of planes do reflect doctrine, and by improving the onboard sensors of the aircraft, they have shifted autonomy from ground to pilot. Although it is too late when the Soviet Union ended.

I think PLAAF began its change not when they got the J-10, but when they first have the Su-27s. At one point, PLAAF pilots didn't even thrust their radar, because their radars were unreliable or give false readings. They were highly reliant on GCI instructions and not used to deciding autonomously. But training with the Su-27 began to change that gradually. A lot of changes also occur by studying Western examples, when the PLAAF, like much of the PLA, suffered culture shock in the early nineties how much they have fallen behind.

Going back to the J-8F, I think all the onboard sensor improvements would improve its standing in modern combat, kind like an upgraded F-4. GCI interception and control is still a valid doctrine, though now we have merely modernized the concept with AWACS, electronic scanning radars, and modern datalinks, with a lot more sensor information sharing.

It does seem like GCI was a valid tactic when technology dictated that big radars looking up into the sky worked better than fighter sensors. Prior to PGM's ground stations shouldn't have been that easy to destroy if they were defended by SA-2 and AAA.

I should try a terrain hugging approach against North Korea's GCI system in Falcon 4. However games are notorious for not doing line of sight correctly.

Well since the J-7/8 are beginning to reach retirment with some units already doing so. The retiring units that are being replaced by J-10/11 shouldnt be put to waste by storing them into the caves. PLA have always used what they got in their hands to the fullest and using the retired J-8 as reconassiance aircraft is perfect role for the aircraft to find position within the PLAAF.

Better use it then waste it. Since the J-8 can't match the majority of todays modern fighters then why not at least assign the role of reconassiance to the aircraft. Its got speed and altitude, crucial things in reconissance. JH-7/A for reconissance not really suitable, J-10/11 for reconissance too expensive to risk. J-8 is cheap and effective

First of all to Chengdu J-10: I think this JZ8F is newly built, in the 80's, the PLAAF used newly( back then) built J8 to convert it to JZ8, it has been almost 20 years by now, so one would think the PLAAF will built about 20 new JZ8IIFs to replace those old JZ8. Also I do not think all those units that have older J7II will be replaced with one on one ratio with new jets. In the next 5-7 years, we will see a much smaller PLAAF.
To crobato: I think the reason we see a lots of mixed aircraft type units in the PLAAF today ( some division has three types, other has two) as compared to 10 years ago when one division mainly uses one kind aircraft is that the PLAAF is using on type of jet to cover the other type's 6's so to speak. See, facing the ROC M2000, you would have 2 J8IIF fly along with two J7Es, this way, the M2000's better capabilities are equalized. Even the A5E/f mixing with the JH7/A make sense as well. One for close in airsupport, one for longer range percision strike. This kind mixing also help for dis-similar training. If you see it this way, then I would say, there still is a place in the future for the J8IIF in the PLAAF, as long as there are J7E/G, A5 around. If we see more JZ8F came out, which I believe we will, then that is another indication that J8IIF's place is secure. What do you guys think?

PLAAF does not need a lot of JZ-8F. The JZ-8 is pretty much restricted to one regiment (24th Division?), and the JZ-8F maybe replacing them.

I agree on your points on mixing plane types within a single division.

Months ago I was thinking they were going to kill the J-8II entirely. Seems to me the opposite is happening. In addition to recon, they're going to use the J-8F to drop LS-6s, FT-2s etc,. I don't think they can afford to buy all the J-10s and J-11Bs they want, and the PLAAF will continue to face a lot of units with aging aircraft they will have problems to replace in a timely fashion. The J-8F provides a cheap and fast BVR platform although I have a feeling that the JF-17 is probably more economical in the long run to fill that role.

As fuel prices rise, there might be pressure on the PLAAF to limit the flight hours, and even more pressure to limit hours on aircraft that have a high consumption habit. Of course the Kunlun claims to be more economical than the WP-13BII, but its still a turbojet. J-8F will definitely outrun JF-17 in a straight line with its superior TWR. but JF-17 is much more maneuverable and can fill both J-7G and J-8F shoes nicely at the same time.

Currently J-8F place is secure--for now. But if JF-17 is accepted into PLAAF or J-10 prices go down, there will be pressure on it to stop production, although the type will still remain in PLAAF service for some time to come till the airframes have nearly run out of flight hours.

I have read somewhere that CAC is running 3 production lines for the J10 and its factory workers work in 3 8 hrs shifts, but still, I and the PLAAF would be happy if CAC can produce 70-80 J10s in a year. JF17 has to fill PAKAF orders as well, J7G has stoped production, so I think the PLAAF can get maybe 30-40 JF17s per year in its first 3-4 years of production. You total the #s, came to about 120 jet at best, and that is a lot for modern aircraft production in the World, but not nearly enough to replace all these old J7s( about 850 older none E/G) J8 (about 120) and older A5 ( about 350). On the other factory with J11B, if SAC produce 30 J11B in a year, I will be happy, so far they have not come even close to that production#. So that is where J8IIF came in, to fill the GAPs for fighter shortage. As for JF17 repalce the J8IIF, unless the RD93 has more power and the JF17 are cleared for higher celling ( right now, it is 16,500m) I do not see it as a competitor. A better engine for the JF17 is no where to be seen, it is short leged, slower, fly lower, it even has smaller front section so a big radar can not fit into JF17 but maybe able to fit into J8IIF. So overall, I think J8IIF and JF17 fit into different roles for the PLAAF. BTW, I do not know even the PLAAF knows for sure how many total JF17s they want, I think they have not figured out the ratio between J10 vs JF17 both in term of OP cost and in terms of capabilities. The way I see it, the more CAC update the capabilities of the JF17, the less J10 they are going to sell to the PLAAF in the long run. So we may see the end of JF17 updates for a while.
I do not think the fuel prices will cut PLAAF flying hrs, today's China is not Russia of 10 years ago. But jet crashs will cut flying hrs in the PLAAF, so far this year, they (PLAAF) has had a lots crashs, so safety again came to the picture, a lot times follow a crash, whole fleet was grounded ( of the crashed type) for a time. Last month, the PLAAF had a work meeting on flight safety, the air chief said to all that, if this month has no crash, then he will be very happy, this kind of thinking and talk from the top is going to have an effect on the effectiveness of training, of which I do not like to see it happen.