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

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.

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).

sumdud said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sumdud said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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:

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

RedMercury said:

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:

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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