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

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

  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FC1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40Km,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,FC1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

Banned Idiot
Re: j-8 vs FC-1

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.
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: j-8 vs FC-1

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

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: j-8 vs FC-1

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

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: j-8 vs FC-1

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

New Member
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

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

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
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

New Member
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.
 
Top