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

[RopetorGamer]

Love the Jeff it's my favorite module in game and I'm exited for the J-8.

 

What do you mean by ''The IFF and countermeasure systems of J-8PP will be simplified in game.'' I understand the IFF but what about the countermeasures how will they be simplified.

[LowRider88]

7 hours ago, Wissam24 said:

Fully agreed. reading this line:
"HUD and HDD should be familiar to everyone. The HUD of J-8PP adopts the F-16A/B style, and a combined glass is added to increase the instantaneous field of view. The HDD is the F-16C/D style, which is located on the right side of the front panel. "

I've lost interest in what would've been a likely surefire buy, as someone who laps up non-Western aircraft, if it has been a pure Chinese version. If I wanted to fly an F-16, I'd buy the F-16 module. 

 

Since 2016, I have come to both excited and disappointed by some of the model choices by DCS.

They picked the version of the F-5E that didn’t even see any combat, and opted for the one used in training.  Similar thing for the MiG-19.

They picked late models of the F-86 and MiG-15 which just made their performance near parity, and thus the game play rather boring, when they could have picked the slightly earlier versions which saw more fighting, and had their unique niches more defined.

I am so happy to finally get another Chinese plane, and one that Chinese pilots actually flew outside of development.  But again the dream is slightly tainted by the non Chinese elements.  It is almost like, now that we get a Chinese plan in PLAAF inventory, it has to be slotted into a bluefor what if scenario, fighting the Soviet Union, when perhaps the Soviet Afghan War did not end and the West’s first shift to the east never happened.

I am also curious, were Deka constrained to pick this version because of classified documents from China, or because DCS steered the project in this direction?

What ever the case, I will still support Deka and buy this product.  Excellent quality and research.  Excellent community engagement.  So many quality freebies, despite having been stolen from in the past.  Great guys.

[FlankerFan35]

I'm personally extremely excited for this project, and for all those feeling disappointed about American avionics and it's not Chinese enough and yadda yadda, consider that Deka has said in the past they wanted to make J-11 and were testing stuff internally with MKK etc. I'm sure a group who started a Dev team based on Chinese aviation is more excited than any of us about bringing fully Chinese aircraft to DCS (probably why they started Deka company in the first place) and more disappointed than we are when they can't bring something fully Chinese to DCS.

They've done great work in the past and I'm positive this project will be interesting as well as looking forward to what they get their hands on in the future! So, let's not be too hard on them I'm sure they've done their best to find an aircraft like the J-8 which is quite unique and also Chinese.

Better J-8PP then in jail and no more Deka modules ever, right? plus time may reveal new opportunities  

Cheers Deka, we believe in you!  

[uboats]

3 hours ago, RopetorGamer said:

Love the Jeff it's my favorite module in game and I'm exited for the J-8.

 

What do you mean by ''The IFF and countermeasure systems of J-8PP will be simplified in game.'' I understand the IFF but what about the countermeasures how will they be simplified.

more to simplify how it coop with RWR for auto defense.

 

7 hours ago, PLAAF said:

Wait, where is the control for chaff and flare? They are not located on the throttle?

no, you need to operate it on the right console.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

3 hours ago, LowRider88 said:

 it has to be slotted into a bluefor what if scenario, fighting the Soviet Union, when perhaps the Soviet Afghan War did not end and the West’s first shift to the east never happened.
 

That's the kind of interesting What-If I'm onboard for.

[EnvyC]

Deka has been very very clear over the years that their choices are defined by what the PLAAF allows them to do without moving into a jail cell for the rest of their lives. If the choice is the J8PP or nothing at all, I'll take the J8PP.

[PLAAF]

20 hours ago, uboats said:

Q: What weapons can J-8PP carry?

A: Air-to-air weapons include PL-5, PL-8, Aspide/PL-11; Air-to-ground weapons include 250Kg GP bomb, 57mm/90mm rockets. Check below figure for details

 

 

So, it is as I suspected. Only the J-8F's inner pylon can carry PL-8.

[FlankerFan35]

28 minutes ago, PLAAF said:

So, it is as I suspected. Only the J-8F's inner pylon can carry PL-8.

Looks like on diagram that only mid/outer pylons can carry PL-8? and inner PL-5. I wonder why no PL-8 in inner on J-8PP.

[LowRider88]

20 hours ago, uboats said:

Q: Are there any flight characteristics or defects of the J-8II, and are there any changes in the flight characteristics of the J-8PP?

A: The most characteristic feature of J-8II is that it can easily reach the maximum IAS speed and maximum Mach number in level flight (unlike some third-generation aircraft that need to dive). The delta wing also brings a very good stall characteristic, the minimum speed for maneuvering is lower than 200km/h, and the angle of attack can be greater than 30°. The J-8II has speed stability in most situations, but when it decelerates with g-load in supersonic, the aircraft has a slight nose-up characteristic.

Compared with J-8II, J-8PP only has changes in the center of gravity and weight, and some cooling inlets on fuselage have been added. It will not lead to much change to the flight characteristics.

 

Just googled “touch down speed vs stall speed” and found this:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=95025
 

From this, apparently:

 

“Approach speed (Vref) is typically 1.3 times the stalling speed (in the landing configuration). The aircraft's stall speed is directly related to the current weight of the aircraft. Touch down should occur at a speed no less than Vref minus 10 knots.”

 

Also googled “knots to kph”.

Looking at the manuals for the DCS F-5E and MiG-19:

Touchdown Speed: F-5E = 135 knots

Approach Speed: F-5E ~= 145 knots

Stall Speed: F-5E ~= 145 / 1.3 ~= 111.54 knots ~= 206.57 kph

Touchdown Speed: MiG-19 = 235 kph

Approach Speed: MiG-19 ~= 253.52 kph

Stall Speed: MiG-19 ~= 253.52 / 1.3 ~= 195.02 kph

 

Just some rough calculations, but this might imply the J-8II has slow speed maneuverability about the same as the MiG-19, and better than the F-5E, which could come in handy in a scissors fight.

Not bad for a plane the weight of an F/A-18 and the length of an F-15.

[ak22]

I'm looking forward to flying this brid, you guys did great work on the JF-17.  You might aswell make the F-16A when your done with the J-8II .

Edited February 18, 2023 by ak22

[t_hedlund]

I'll be honest, I had no clue of this aircraft before the announcement of the module, but it is a rather interesting aircraft. I this may not be a 1st day purchase for me, but it will be someday adding to my collection. Thank you for providing additional details. 

[PLAAF]

1 hour ago, t_hedlund said:

I'll be honest, I had no clue of this aircraft before the announcement of the module, but it is a rather interesting aircraft. I this may not be a 1st day purchase for me, but it will be someday adding to my collection. Thank you for providing additional details. 

Want to know more about this awesome plane? You can take a look at my old thread. Just scroll down to the J-8 section.

 

[Exorcet]

On 2/17/2023 at 6:34 AM, Wissam24 said:

I've lost interest in what would've been a likely surefire buy, as someone who laps up non-Western aircraft, if it has been a pure Chinese version. If I wanted to fly an F-16, I'd buy the F-16 module. 

 

I'd like to see Deka's "F-16" fly remotely like a F-16. Everyone has their preferences but I never expected to see people say that sharing a HUD makes two planes identical.

 

Anyway, I'm glad that some developers are modeling unique planes like this. I'm really curious to see how it flies and operates. I also appreciate having the additional AI version. I really have to hand it to Deka, even when not taking their modules into consideration they've done a lot for DCS by providing the free asset pack and fleshing out one of the major nations in DCS. Please keep it up.

[SqnLdr_chuishan]

I cannot really understand why people are getting upset about the American avionics and fire control on this aircraft. From my point of view it is exactly the combination of the 2nd generation high-altitude, high-speed interceptor design, and the (partially) 3rd generation radar and fire control on this aircraft that will make the operation experience unique. 

J-8 was born in the era of high-altitude, high-speed interceptors, when air-to-air missile technology was still in its infancy and you needed to rely on solely the performance capability of the aircraft to complete those missions. The J-8 thus has superb performance regarding its speed, climb, and handling qualities. Many modern 3rd generation fighters do not have high performance as those aircraft were born in the era when situational awareness and missile capabilities were more important than aircraft performance. 

With the upgrade of US radar and fire control system the J-8PP becomes a platform that has limited modern situational awareness, and can conduct air-to-air missions without relying totally on GCI. J-8PP's offensive capability, however, is still restricted by its limited variants of weapon payload. I can therefore imagine that the pilot is still expected to make the best use of the performance of the aircraft to explore its combat potential. J-8PP is a heavy interceptor modified with a 3rd gen radar. I would say its combat experience will be nowhere near F-16, which is a light-weight multi-role fighter with good situational awareness, modern electronics and diverse weapon systems. It's combat experience will also be different from 2nd gen fighters like MiG-21 or MiG-23, for which GCI guidance is essential and the capability for multi-tasking is close to none.

I would say the challenge for flying the J-8PP in combat lays in how to make good use of its performance potential. How to fly the jet well, is more important in my view.

Part of the avionics are not Chinese product? Why would that matter if it does not change the role and functionality of the aircraft? It is like those airworthy classic warbirds: Will you recognize a Mitsubishi A6M Zero with Wright Cyclone engine as a 'non-Zero'? Or a IL-2 Sturmovik with Allison V-1710 engine as a 'non-IL-2'?

Edited February 19, 2023 by SqnLdr_chuishan

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, SqnLdr_chuishan said:

Part of the avionics are not Chinese product? Why would that matter if it does not change the role and functionality of the aircraft? It is like those airworthy classic warbirds: Will you recognize a Mitsubishi A6M Zero with Wright Cyclone engine as a 'non-Zero'? Or a IL-2 Sturmovik with Allison V-1710 engine as a 'non-IL-2'?

 

Well, for the sake of argument, I'd honestly say that's not a fair comparison. Now, just to be clear, I'm stoked for the PP.  It's clear as day as to why the variant was chosen and anyone who takes umbrage with it needs to understand that their toys do not come before the interests of national defenses, regardless of how one feels about it.

But, sourcing an AM-38 to power an airworthy Sturmovik is a lot different to getting details on in service J-8s.
 

[LowRider88]

3 hours ago, SqnLdr_chuishan said:

I cannot really understand why people are getting upset about the American avionics and fire control on this aircraft. From my point of view it is exactly the combination of the 2nd generation high-altitude, high-speed interceptor design, and the (partially) 3rd generation radar and fire control on this aircraft that will make the operation experience unique. 

J-8 was born in the era of high-altitude, high-speed interceptors, when air-to-air missile technology was still in its infancy and you needed to rely on solely the performance capability of the aircraft to complete those missions. The J-8 thus has superb performance regarding its speed, climb, and handling qualities. Many modern 3rd generation fighters do not have high performance as those aircraft were born in the era when situational awareness and missile capabilities were more important than aircraft performance. 

With the upgrade of US radar and fire control system the J-8PP becomes a platform that has limited modern situational awareness, and can conduct air-to-air missions without relying totally on GCI. J-8PP's offensive capability, however, is still restricted by its limited variants of weapon payload. I can therefore imagine that the pilot is still expected to make the best use of the performance of the aircraft to explore its combat potential. J-8PP is a heavy interceptor modified with a 3rd gen radar. I would say its combat experience will be nowhere near F-16, which is a light-weight multi-role fighter with good situational awareness, modern electronics and diverse weapon systems. It's combat experience will also be different from 2nd gen fighters like MiG-21 or MiG-23, for which GCI guidance is essential and the capability for multi-tasking is close to none.

I would say the challenge for flying the J-8PP in combat lays in how to make good use of its performance potential. How to fly the jet well, is more important in my view.

Part of the avionics are not Chinese product? Why would that matter if it does not change the role and functionality of the aircraft? It is like those airworthy classic warbirds: Will you recognize a Mitsubishi A6M Zero with Wright Cyclone engine as a 'non-Zero'? Or a IL-2 Sturmovik with Allison V-1710 engine as a 'non-IL-2'?

 

I was one of the folks who was initially disappointed for not having a full Chinese cockpit.

Fortunately for me, I found out about the big news about a week late and by the time I finished catching up on the thread my feelings subsided and I avoided the embarrassment of going off on the PP (not to say that anyone who did embarrassed themselves, I totally understood where they were coming from).

With some time to think about it, although the PP was not built in numbers or had a production run, I now think of it as a fully Chinese plane, despite the western avionics.

Just like the PL-8 missile started off as the Python from Israel, and the PL-11 began as the Aspide from Italy, the forth gen aspects of the J-8 began with an external source.

Some people want an all Chinese plane because they don’t want trolls going on about the Chinese copying of tech (especially when all that tech was legitimately purchased).

But this is the unique aspect of the Chinese Aviation Industry.  I recently learned that Deng Xiaoping had a saying which was something like “when crossing a river, cross slowly to feel every rock with your feet”, or something like that.

The Chinese Aviation Industry is iterative, taking careful steps, not really caring that there are trolls screaming “copy and paste”, and just progressing carefully, which proved to be the right way until they could afford to take more gambles and tech jumps later.

So external starting points are still part of the history of this plane, just like it was for the missiles, before they evolved into something unique.  I believe PLAAF posted a nice thread with the different variants of the J-8, and photos of the later ones like the G, H, or F had similar cockpit features of the PP, like the MFDs.

So the PP is still interesting to me.  Like a snapshot in time in the long road of development.

[SqnLdr_chuishan]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Well, for the sake of argument, I'd honestly say that's not a fair comparison. Now, just to be clear, I'm stoked for the PP.  It's clear as day as to why the variant was chosen and anyone who takes umbrage with it needs to understand that their toys do not come before the interests of national defenses, regardless of how one feels about it.

But, sourcing an AM-38 to power an airworthy Sturmovik is a lot different to getting details on in service J-8s.
 

Yeah I cannot agree more on this. Being a Chinese myself I know the attitude PLA possessed about their equipment, and the development effort thereof.

The point I would like to make is that one cannot really argue, that as part of the avionics are US made, the experience in flying this module would be very American. Some say that with the US avionics installed the immersion would be destroyed. As far as I am concerned, however, the functionality and operational principle of J-8PP would not be different from the later J-8F or other fighter variants (not considering the PL-12 or later missiles). It is a 2nd gen air frame with limited 3rd gen situational awareness upgrade, the capability and operation doctrine will be the same. That's why I said one cannot argue that a IL-2 air frame powered with V-1710 would fly like an American aircraft. 

[PLAAF]

15 minutes ago, SqnLdr_chuishan said:

It is a 2nd gen air frame with limited 3rd gen situational awareness upgrade, the capability and operation doctrine will be the same. That's why I said one cannot argue that a IL-2 air frame powered with V-1710 would fly like an American aircraft. 

Just to want to clear things up here for everybody.  SqnLdr_chuishan here used Chinese classification of generations and so does the Deka in their JF-17 missions.
China has a different way to define "generation" in fighter aircrafts.

Correct me if I am wrong, in the west, the aircrafts are classified as follow:
1st gen: Back swept wing fighters like MiG-15, 17 and F-86
2nd gen: Supersonic fighters like MiG-19 and F-100
3rd gen: Fighters with BVR missiles like MiG-23 and F-4
4th gen: Unstable fighters with doppler pulse radars
5th gen: Stealth fighters

In Chinese classification there are only 4 generation of fighters. The 2nd and 3rd were combined by into 1 because there is no significate breakthrough in terms of plane design.  Yes, a 3rd gen fighter can launch BVR missiles, but that's because the breakthrough in radar, not in plane.

So when Deka say things like "3rd gen fighter" in their mission, what they really meant was a 4th gen fighter in western definition.

[LowRider88]

6 hours ago, PLAAF said:

Just to want to clear things up here for everybody.  SqnLdr_chuishan here used Chinese classification of generations and so does the Deka in their JF-17 missions.
China has a different way to define "generation" in fighter aircrafts.

Correct me if I am wrong, in the west, the aircrafts are classified as follow:
1st gen: Back swept wing fighters like MiG-15, 17 and F-86
2nd gen: Supersonic fighters like MiG-19 and F-100
3rd gen: Fighters with BVR missiles like MiG-23 and F-4
4th gen: Unstable fighters with doppler pulse radars
5th gen: Stealth fighters

In Chinese classification there are only 4 generation of fighters. The 2nd and 3rd were combined by into 1 because there is no significate breakthrough in terms of plane design.  Yes, a 3rd gen fighter can launch BVR missiles, but that's because the breakthrough in radar, not in plane.

So when Deka say things like "3rd gen fighter" in their mission, what they really meant was a 4th gen fighter in western definition.

I kinda prefer the western version, as, if you are right, BVR provides a more significant advantage and strategy than just supersonic.

But I think western version shouldn’t clump WWII jets into swept wings.  They should have gen 0 for straight wings.

Also, it seems hard to place planes like the F-5E.  I wouldn’t say it is 2nd gen, just because it has no BVR.  I believe it was the first fighter to use lifting body design and LERX, and influenced the design of all 4th gen fighters thereafter.

Also, the F-14 and F-15 both started with no fly by wire and relaxed static stability, yet they are considered 4th gen.

I guess the classification method is more time interval based, or subjective overall.

But Thanks for reminding about the difference in categorization culture.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

7 hours ago, PLAAF said:

Correct me if I am wrong, in the west, the aircrafts are classified as follow:
1st gen: Back swept wing fighters like MiG-15, 17 and F-86
2nd gen: Supersonic fighters like MiG-19 and F-100
3rd gen: Fighters with BVR missiles like MiG-23 and F-4
4th gen: Unstable fighters with doppler pulse radars
5th gen: Stealth fighters

 

Mostly correct, just kind of rough. The only one really off the mark is 5th gen since that also includes AESA radar use in our definition. Fighter generations are even debated in the west. There's a lot of leeway and even designations like 4.5 which would be a 4th gen with something like an AESA radar.

Much like biology and evolution, the things we try to classify don't seem to care much about our definitions.

 

9 hours ago, SqnLdr_chuishan said:

Yeah I cannot agree more on this. Being a Chinese myself I know the attitude PLA possessed about their equipment, and the development effort thereof.

The point I would like to make is that one cannot really argue, that as part of the avionics are US made, the experience in flying this module would be very American. Some say that with the US avionics installed the immersion would be destroyed. As far as I am concerned, however, the functionality and operational principle of J-8PP would not be different from the later J-8F or other fighter variants (not considering the PL-12 or later missiles). It is a 2nd gen air frame with limited 3rd gen situational awareness upgrade, the capability and operation doctrine will be the same. That's why I said one cannot argue that a IL-2 air frame powered with V-1710 would fly like an American aircraft. 

100%. I also have to agree that it would be utterly fallacious to call the J-8PP an American experience. A similar situation would be if got the MiG-21MF-75 LanceR as flown by the Romanian Air Force and others decried it as an Israeli experience because of its Elbit systems additions.

[UrgentSiesta]

One thing I always appreciate are creative solutions to difficult challenges.

This version of the J-8 is the very essence of that ethos, AND will bring a credible Full Fidelity OpFor aircraft to a game that desperately needs them.

After seeing the initial quality and ongoing enhancements to their JF-17, I will definitely be adding this J-8 to my hangar.

I guess the hard part is that there can only be a few "loopholes" like this to build modules from...

I've said it elsewhere, but I think PLAAF/PRC are missing out on fantastic PR & sales opportunities to promote their weapons systems to the world. They should be supporting Deka rather than blocking them.

[LowRider88]

39 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

One thing I always appreciate are creative solutions to difficult challenges.

This version of the J-8 is the very essence of that ethos, AND will bring a credible Full Fidelity OpFor aircraft to a game that desperately needs them.

After seeing the initial quality and ongoing enhancements to their JF-17, I will definitely be adding this J-8 to my hangar.

I guess the hard part is that there can only be a few "loopholes" like this to build modules from...

I've said it elsewhere, but I think PLAAF/PRC are missing out on fantastic PR & sales opportunities to promote their weapons systems to the world. They should be supporting Deka rather than blocking them.

I think there are still many options for Deka.  They could target any retired aircraft, like the Q-5, or early J-7, or any sold to external customers like the CJ-8, JL-8, JL-10.  
I personally can wait for the Q-5.

And a CJ-6 in 3 variants, standard, single seat, and with guns and bombs would be awesome.

[WinterH]

The ones I'd love most is a late J-7 (or well, more likely an F-7), and some sort of Q-5/A-5. I wouldn't mind JL-8 or L-15 either, but these are probably too new. I'd love JH-7 or a Flanker derivative, and would be somewhat interested in a J-10 too, but these I think won't be feasible anytime soon.

My top wishes remain the late J-7 and Q-5 anyway

Also, I wouldn't mind some helicopter either.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

53 minutes ago, LowRider88 said:

I think there are still many options for Deka.  They could target any retired aircraft, like the Q-5, or early J-7, or any sold to external customers like the CJ-8, JL-8, JL-10.  
I personally can wait for the Q-5.

And a CJ-6 in 3 variants, standard, single seat, and with guns and bombs would be awesome.

Depends on how much of the tech in those are still in service in one way or another. There could be derivations and they want that on lock-down.

That said, I'd love me a CJ-6A. I might be biased having flown one. They are lovely aircraft.

Edited February 19, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[LowRider88]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Depends on how much of the tech in those are still in service in one way or another. There could be derivations and they want that on lock-down.

That said, I'd love me a CJ-6A. I might be biased having flown one. They are lovely aircraft.

 

Yeah, I assume it would be like the JF-17, and now the J-8 ,right?  Of course they would not share the active versions.

 

Yep, I think the CJ-6 would sell well both in the east and west.  Lot’s of love for it in the US.

There’s also a rivalry between it and the Yak, which we already have in DCS, so that rivalry could move online too.

If they had an armed CJ-6 and an armed T-28, that would be a cool what if scenario.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by LowRider88