[DCS: J-8II] More Details of J-8PP and Q&A

[BIGNEWY]

Folks treat each other with respect. 

Thank you

[Mr Nobody]

I, for one, am finally breaking my forum silence to announce that I proudly welcome our new J-8II overlords, just because I'm about to sell all my stocks in salt and I need to feel good about my investment.

[EnvyC]

Deka indicated long ago, during the JF17s release, that the amount of Chinese aircraft they are allowed to make that won't land them in the gulag is extremely limited and the J8PP happens to be one of the few they are able to make. People seem to be intent on ignoring the simple fact that if it served with the PLAAF in ANY CAPACITY at ANY TIME they are NOT allowed to sell it to the public.

Given the simulator has numerous frankenstein jets with capabilities they shouldn't have, I'd rather have an aircraft that is somewhat representative of the most pivotal moment in Chinese aviation that never served, than not have it at all. Given that it never served, it is a perfect candidate for Deka to make.

Edited June 17, 2023 by EnvyC

[amalahama]

Why are IFF and countermeasures going to be simplified in game?

Edited June 20, 2023 by amalahama

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

15 hours ago, amalahama said:

Why are IFF and countermeasures going to be simplified in game?

 

IFF is one of the most sensitive topics of military aviation. It might just be that simplification is all that can be done.

As of countermeasures, I'm curious to that one, too.

[SharkShaun]

On 6/13/2023 at 9:46 PM, DisplayName said:

Ok, so with everything supposedly answered. Confirmed; Deka is producing a fake jet module. That is all I cam here to find out, it has been confirmed, thank you.

Was J-8PP ever operational for the PLAAF? I don't think so. Is it reasonable to derive the performance of this jet for its variant's documentation? Maybe. Is the J-8PP completely unbased? I disagree. I think the project is a mix of uncertainty, educated (hopefully sufficient) trials, and excitement of finally modelling a classic yet mysterious airframe in full fidelity. People simply shouldn't label it as "True or False", but rather a module that has required more technical compromises than the existing ones due to its complex background.

I totally get your point of raising the concern, and I agree with most of your arguments. But it's the way you presented your conclusions that outraged people, because nobody wants to see their hardwork / dedication / love to be labelled as "fake". Yes, I wish they could do a full-fidelity model of a variant that actually entered service, but I am more glad that we could even receive a compromised model verus none. I like your argument of using the F-20 Tigershark example, but what if the base F-5 doesn't exist and is impossible to implement, would the community still reacted the same way? F-20 would be more of a cherry on the top for the fans, yet a standard J-8 is something cannot be modelled at least within the next 15 years. 

I personally don't think it lowers the DCS standard, especially if Deka and ED determined that there is enough documentation to start the project, but it is in the end less ideal. And like everyone else says, if you don't like it don't play it, but please also be friendly to those who cherish it. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by SharkShaun

[Torbernite]

2023/6/21 AM10点36分，MiG21bisFishbedL说：

As of countermeasures, I'm curious to that one, too.

I think possibly it means the jammer (yes it has an SPJ) limited by DCS, and also sensitive information. Present ECM model in DCS is very rough. Although F-16 has some ECM characteristic, the simulation is still very primary. Interaction between ECM and other system is modelled, but a full electromagnetic environment or how the ECM works with enemy radar, is not well simulated yet. This is common among our modules, and we may ignore that. But if you ask a developer how the ECM is modelled, he has to say it's "simplified".

[F-2]

Two reports on J-8 radars. The top is from a University thesis 

 

https://m.doc88.com/p-7252361064576.html

The second is a report on an upgraded version fitted to the J-8III, later it was back fitted to late model J-8

(release statement on page 2 bottom by the Chinese “Released by the Ministry of Electronics Industry of the People's Republic of China on 1996-06-14”)

 https://m.doc88.com/p-9909000233569.html#
 

anyway it seems to support KLJ-1 is a Chinese domestic version of apg-66 with homemade parts. J-8pp in terms of sensors and armaments should be very similar to production late model J-8 while the cockpit should have some similarities.

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 7/10/2023 at 11:42 AM, F-2 said:

Two reports on J-8 radars. The top is from a University thesis 

 

https://m.doc88.com/p-7252361064576.html

The second is a report on an upgraded version fitted to the J-8III, later it was back fitted to late model J-8

(release statement on page 2 bottom by the Chinese “Released by the Ministry of Electronics Industry of the People's Republic of China on 1996-06-14”)

 https://m.doc88.com/p-9909000233569.html#
 

anyway it seems to support KLJ-1 is a Chinese domestic version of apg-66 with homemade parts. J-8pp in terms of sensors and armaments should be very similar to production late model J-8 while the cockpit should have some similarities.

 

This is pretty neat and also hilarious with all the malding and hand-wringing about "fake" jets.

It's not as if the J-8II, itself, ceased to exist once China decided to back out of the Peace Pearl program.

[EnvyC]

On 6/20/2023 at 8:46 PM, amalahama said:

Why are IFF and countermeasures going to be simplified in game?

 

Because ED's systems are simplified and it would be unfair. That said no other 3rd party dev has done anything regarding realistic IFF either so its just adding complexity for no extra value for Deka.

Even the JF17s IFF, though more complex than other DCS modules, is rudimentary at best.

[FlankerKiller]

The KA-50 is a prototype. I hate it but not for that reason. The SU-25T is limited production. I would gladly drop full module price on a full fidelity SU-25T on day one if it could ever be done. F-20 was fully tested and offered. It’s also one of my favorite jets. Again I would buy day one at full price plus some. We fly fictitious wars anyway. If the PP flew in any configuration or capacity then I have no problem with it in DCS. Remember, even an example size of one is still a real airplane.

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

If the PP flew in any configuration or capacity then I have no problem with it in DCS. Remember, even an example size of one is still a real airplane.

 

Apparently a PP might have conducted a test flight or two, but realistically? It's still a J-8II of some form, an airframe that has seen a respectable service career. The only change is, of course, the use of domestic avionics in the production examples.

[Schmidtfire]

Deka Ironworks has already settled on the PP and ED has pushed the green light on the project.

There is a lot of fans out there who like the F-20 Tigershark. Maybe J-8PP has the same draw among the Chinese playerbase? We tend to forget that 3rd party devs commits many years of their time on a project. Obviously they must select something fun that they like to work on. And for Deka Ironworks, perhaps the vanilla J-8 is too plain and boring to develop.

I can only speak for myself, but I will be curious enough to buy the PP, even if it's a "Frankenstein" jet.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 9/16/2023 at 3:41 AM, Schmidtfire said:

Deka Ironworks has already settled on the PP and ED has pushed the green light on the project.

There is a lot of fans out there who like the F-20 Tigershark. Maybe J-8PP has the same draw among the Chinese playerbase? We tend to forget that 3rd party devs commits many years of their time on a project. Obviously they must select something fun that they like to work on. And for Deka Ironworks, perhaps the vanilla J-8 is too plain and boring to develop.

I can only speak for myself, but I will be curious enough to buy the PP, even if it's a "Frankenstein" jet.

At some point, most combat aircraft become a degree of Frankenstein. It's inavoidable as airframes age and need to keep up with modern demands. So, I embrace it. If the Peace Pearl is all we can get because of security concerns, so be it.

It's also a proper interceptor, I am so down for that. I love these dedicated interceptors. If only we could get an F-102A, F-106A, or Su-15.

[CaptPickguard]

On 6/20/2023 at 6:46 AM, amalahama said:

Why are IFF and countermeasures going to be simplified in game?

 

Just to comment on this, pretty much every module in DCS simplifies IFF and countermeasures. Flares and chaff are dicerolls (in most cases) and IFF is a simple game engine check (in most cases).

There is nothing unprecedented about this. The difference is that Deka is mentioning this will be the case directly rather than just doing it without communicating their intentions.

[Billy]

I'm more ok with J-8PP than F-20 because J-8PP represents the capability of standard J-8II's, therefore I can pretend they are normal J-8II's. I don't want to fly a server alongside or against 20 F-20s. 

[Mike Force Team]

Hello,

Any new updates on this jet? We have not seen any new information in almost one year.

Mike Force Team 

[uboats]

3 hours ago, Mike Force Team said:

Hello,

Any new updates on this jet? We have not seen any new information in almost one year.

Mike Force Team 

Not much at this moment, I just finished radio parts

[pepin1234]

How many aircrafts were built?

[zerO_crash]

There are many wrong statements being made here, as per open forum standards. Let's try and clean it up a bit:

 

With regards to what the general idea and purpose of DCS is as a simulator, here is the extract from the welcoming page for www.dcsworld.com:

 

"Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.9 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible. This free download includes a vast mission area of the Caucasus region and Black Sea that encompasses much of Georgia. It also includes a flyable Russian Sukhoi Su-25T ground attack aircraft and the famous WWII North American TF-51D fighter. An additional more than two dozen aircraft are available for purchase."

 

I suggest everyone read the above very closely, to understand the spirit of the developers. If you want a module for which there is insufficient information for, I suggest you wait for ED's "game"-variant of DCS, or simply go for available games out there. This is afterall a simulator, as per definition, and its main interest lies in delivering an authentic experience. That's all there is to it, topic finished!

Now, as to some comparisons being made earlier here:

 

- The Ka-50 we have, was not only a prototype, but an actual variant ready for production. It was ready for full-scale production, if Soviet Union would have decided to go on ahead with the product (ultimately, financial matters, and the collapse of Soviet Union, decided on the matter). The Ka-50 we have has been tested and evaluated in combat (two of them, to be precise), and proved their worth. Again, this was a complete product ready for mass production.

 

- There is only one IL-2 with a Alison V-1710-113 engine, a restored one residing in US. The original ones (non-restored) used Mikulin, with propositions for Shvetsov that never materialized. I get what the author tried to argue with, but frankly, it's not the best example.

 

I will point out; while ED and their subordinates (3rd parties) have on occasion made dubious choices with regards to armaments/systems (something that has bit them in the tail in the aftermath - questions raised on the forums), most of these "artefacts" have been handled with "will be solved". For example, it took quite some time for the Mirage 2000C to be corrected based on input supplied by pilots from AdA (French Air Force), same with the Sa-342 (after initial developer reluctance). As to MiG-21Bis, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it is not neccessarily an abomination, but certainly a module with many faults in it (not bugs!). It has been confirmed that it will be redone in MiG-21Bis 2.0, and so far, let's stick to that. It just goes to show that if you screw up with realism initially, you are adding yourself work for later.

 

Deka surely has no lack of ambition in wanting to bring more Chinese modules to the market, however as has been hinted earlier on, it's a matter of local laws granting persecution. For comparison, we will never have as modern aircraft modelled from Russia, as there currently are from US (F-16, F-18, F-15, etc...). Better accept that, and move on. Little can be done about it. If Deka feels that this is the most relevant aircraft that can be represented without infringing themselves, then I suppose that's an educated choice. Especially, if they are confident that they have enough information on the matter, and pilots, who even with approximation, can give a solid feedback. Be patient, I'm sure they'll deliver!

 

Lastly, much has been mentioned about the "westernization" and "stealing" of tech, to then implement it in ones own. Well guess what, the western crowd might be the loudest on this side of the forum, but let me point out the following; US would not have had the F-22/F-35 and the concept for stealth, if not for Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev (father of modern mathematics behind stealth - his formulas were used by US to develop F-22 and F-35 stealth models). F-35 alone, was based mainly on Yak-141, which they participated in funding, as they saw benefit in it themselves. I guess flying an F-35 today, one cannot help but feel like flying a Yak-141, or? (Sarcasm). Maybe helmet mounted sight is original US? I guess not, actually, it was made originally by a private military subcontractor in South Africa. Datalink, another conecept which came originally from Russia (the way we see it as a system today). Automation in ships/submarines/aircraft, I won't even mention... US, Russia, China, any other country, the way it works is that each country steals technology from their peers. Let's not forget who was first to invent black powder, and how it magically ended up in the west without any credit being paid. When it comes to aerial warfare, due to China being a relatively new (but competent) player in the field, you'll see some mixed foreign components in their designs from 60s and all the way up to 2000s. This is common practice, afterall.

Edited February 16, 2024 by zerO_crash

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

7 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

 US would not have had the F-22/F-35 and the concept for stealth, if not for Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev (father of modern mathematics behind stealth - his formulas were used by US to develop F-22 and F-35 stealth models).

 

That's a gross oversimplification of that particular story. Thad Darger mentions Ufimtsev, but he's just one person associated with the F-117. Another name cited is Scottish scientist James Clark Maxwell.

Although, this would further your point, over all.

Edited January 22, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[zerO_crash]

25 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

That's a gross oversimplification of that particular story.

Granted the nature of forums, and me attempting to keep multiple points short, no. Considering the whole topic at hand, yes. It's that story in a very rough outline, however, still to the point. To think of "stealth" as the next generational leap, would definitely not have been as obvious or accessible, if not for the hard work being done on beforehand. It is really the work of Ufimtsev, that gave US any ability to perform analysis on the viability of stealth, before even making it a demand for the next generation of attack platform. You might think that US would have its own engineers and scientists on the case and be done with it ASAP on their own. Truth is, even with the advancement of the west in certain particular fields, there are areas they objectively lag very far behind. A good example here would be rocket engines. The lag in rocket engine technology is stipulated to be roughly 20-25 years. When NASA first got access Russian rocket engines, they were amazed at how Russians managed to solve issues, which they themselves believed were in practical terms impossible with current technology, and near future. Keep in mind, space exploration and Saturn-V are considered smong the most expensive projects in US history. Point is, talking about "what ifs" is contemporary in nature, we will never know. What is known however, is that F-22/F-35 programs would not only cost more in money and manpower, but essentially in time. That is assuming that US would reach the same conclusions as they did with information available at hand.

 

This is topic can be expanded left and right, but it does stand clear that whichever country you are from, you use technology available at hand. That, irrespective of where that technology comes from. WWII didn't happen too long ago, yet US was willing to forgive Von Braun snd his team of scientists their deeds, as long as they came and worked (lead) the US rocketry initative. Same with Japanese Unit 731 with Shirō Ishii ahead. None of these "people" ever saw justice, amnesty was granted in return for the data on experiments which they carried out. Again, the examples are endless. Don't think for a second that it's any different now.

 

Let's not derail the thread too much. Should you wonder about more, or want to talk about the topic in makro/mikro, shoot me a PM.

 

EDIT: To answer your edit, definitely the F-117 as well, which realy was nothing else than a live proof of concept. Effectively, both F-117 and B-2 opened the doors to the realm of "stealth", which is what US specifically builds its future capability for a high level conflict on. It only further underlines the point, as you mention. My point is, there really is no object built in this world, which is solely an invention of one nation. There is a mix of technologies, some dating back milleniums. In this respect, the J-8PP is thus no different.

Edited January 22, 2024 by zerO_crash

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

4 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

-snip-

 

Yeah, I was just wanting to point out that there's an even better case to be made by including the other researcher often cited. Human progress is an iterative and collective experience.

And, frankly, the arguments *AGAINST* the J-8II as selected by Deka are wholly unconvincing and have remained as such.

[zerO_crash]

Well, I'd say that he is definitely worth mentioning, but then again, to keep it short. Ufimtsev was still the first recorded scientist (mathematician) to consider the concept of geometry stressing reduced observability. They both work though.

 

I'm not too familiar with the laws surrounding military in China (specifics), but it could be something as simple as China still keeping those aircraft (J-8II) in the inventory for a dark hour. Much like the airplane graveyard in US (Texas I believe). Again, not sure of this, just guessing. I am somewhat sure that Deka would choose the more common J-8II if they could. Thinking of more accessible information, documents, pilots, etc... There is obviously a reason they didn't though.

 

EDIT: Looking at it online, it seems that some later J-8F/H reconnaissance version is still in active use in the PLAAF. That could be a solid reason for why the J-8II (with homemade electronics/software) could be a touchy subject. Pure speculation here though.

Edited January 22, 2024 by zerO_crash

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

40 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

EDIT: Looking at it online, it seems that some later J-8F/H reconnaissance version is still in active use in the PLAAF. That could be a solid reason for why the J-8II (with homemade electronics/software) could be a touchy subject. Pure speculation here though.

 

From what I can glib, the Chinese Gov are pretty black and white on the topic. Basically, if the type in service? It's no bueno. After all, we're not getting a J-8A (J-8 I if you prefer that nomenclature). There's probably a lot more to it than that (I'm sure that they'd not care too much if Deka wanted to make a CJ-6A, after all), but it seems to be the simplified rule of thumb. It's also kind of nice in as so much as you instantly know what is good to go and what isn't.

With the Peace Pearl, they can combined accessible information on its radar set as well as the aerodynamic qualities of the J-8 II, of which the PLAAF doesn't seem to cagey about.