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

[PLAAF]

1 hour ago, uboats said:

forum account ban is not as realistic as jail

What do you mean? You lost me there.

forum account ban? not as realistic as jail? Feel free to use Chinese.

[Torbernite]

50分钟前，PLAAF说：

What do you mean? You lost me there.

forum account ban? not as realistic as jail? Feel free to use Chinese.

He means our module would never be full realistic, just like that we can talk about anything in forum and game, facing no more than ban, but making that datalink would put them into real jail.

[PLAAF]

2 hours ago, Torbernite said:

Could it be modded in a simplified or hypothetical way like M2000C?  And a special option to disable it for those hate that.

Hi, @uboats He makes an excellent point. Would you consider what he said, please?

[Bremspropeller]

T'is a manly looking airplane...

https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Air-Force/Shenyang-J-8DF/7154985/L

 

 

[Torbernite]

1小时前，Bremspropeller说：

T'is a manly looking airplane...

https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Air-Force/Shenyang-J-8DF/7154985/L

 

 

Well… Do you know a Chinese meme called "Cai Guoqing in sky"? 

In late 1980s, a Singaporean military industries delegation came to China mainland for visit. A pilot of Chinese ancestry who had flown several western planes took an experience flight on J-8I. He commented it felt like "an athletic handsome man in the sky". This nickname then spread among aero industries practitioners in China and was inherited by J-8II series. In fact, it's a euphemism meaning J-8I is large in scale and nice on data but left behind on avionics and only apparently "athletic" in show but not "strong" enough in combat, and the Chinese receptionists understood that. Cai Guoqing is a singer of PLA military art troupe and was considered as typical Adonis type man at that time, known as "top 1 handsome man in the army". So when this comment was known by the Chinese aero fans, this tag changed to "Cai Guoqing in sky" as a self-mocking banter.

This meme was indirectly used by Deka earlier on Chinese social media in their hint for the next module, and that's why I said at that time, that it must be a J-8 or J-8II but the meme is too Chinese to explain on the forum.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Torbernite

[LowRider88]

57 minutes ago, Torbernite said:

Well… Do you know a Chinese meme called "Cai Guoqing in sky"? 

In late 1980s, a Singaporean military industries delegation came to China mainland for visit. A pilot of Chinese ancestry who had flown several western planes took an experience flight on J-8I. He commented it felt like "an athletic handsome man in the sky". This nickname then spread among aero industries practitioners in China and was inherited by J-8II series. In fact, it's a euphemism meaning J-8I is large in scale and nice on data but left behind on avionics and only apparently "athletic" in show but not "strong" enough in combat, and the Chinese receptionists understood that. Cai Guoqing is a singer of PLA military art troupe and was considered as typical Adonis type man at that time, known as "top 1 handsome man in the army". So when this comment was known by the Chinese aero fans, this tag changed to "Cai Guoqing in sky" as a self-mocking banter.

This meme was indirectly used by Deka earlier on Chinese social media in their hint for the next module, and that's why I said at that time, that it must be a J-8 or J-8II but the meme is too Chinese to explain on the forum.

 

Thanks for the history.  I was wondering about that from the wiki page:

https://zh-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/zh/歼-8?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
 

That’s where I found the “Flying Pencil” reference too.

 

Due to the length of the fuselage, the aircraft is known among Chinese military fans as " Cai Guoqing in the air ", "man-operated rocket" and "flying pencil".

[Torbernite]

@uboats Could you show us the HOTAS design on the stick? I wonder how many 4/5-way hats are used.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 3/3/2023 at 11:08 AM, Torbernite said:

@uboats Could you show us the HOTAS design on the stick? I wonder how many 4/5-way hats are used.

Seconding this.

[Temetre]

Am 1.3.2023 um 16:15 schrieb LowRider88:

Thanks for the history.  I was wondering about that from the wiki page:

https://zh-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/zh/歼-8?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
 

That’s where I found the “Flying Pencil” reference too.

 

Due to the length of the fuselage, the aircraft is known among Chinese military fans as " Cai Guoqing in the air ", "man-operated rocket" and "flying pencil".

Sounds like a lot of aircraft earned the nickname flying pencil, even some WW2 fliers. Though I especially like the idea of Soviet Mig-21s (and 'successors' like J-8) being considered supersonic flying pencils.

Originally I really didnt care about about the J-8, but considering how fun the Mig-21Bis was, and this being like a massively improved version, Im very curious now.

[Rowdyhorse4]

Am curious about the CW illuminator. I thought the Aspide 1A/PL-11 were already using monopulse seakers, not CW seekers? if so, wouldn't the CW illuminator be useless?

does anyone have any more information regarding the CW illuminators that you can share? I never recalled seeing in any article or documents about a CW illuminator being added and i would love to read up on it.

another question, did Shenyang also get the AN/APG-66V-PRC-F8 when america returned the J-8PPs as well?

[F-2]

2 hours ago, Rowdyhorse4 said:

Am curious about the CW illuminator. I thought the Aspide 1A/PL-11 were already using monopulse seakers, not CW seekers? if so, wouldn't the CW illuminator be useless?

does anyone have any more information regarding the CW illuminators that you can share? I never recalled seeing in any article or documents about a CW illuminator being added and i would love to read up on it.

another question, did Shenyang also get the AN/APG-66V-PRC-F8 when america returned the J-8PPs as well?

The radar uses the CW horn not the missile. APG-66 uses a CW horn while APG-68 for example can illuminate a target without one.

[Rowdyhorse4]

10 hours ago, F-2 said:

The radar uses the CW horn not the missile. APG-66 uses a CW horn while APG-68 for example can illuminate a target without one.

iirc APG-66 didn't come with a CW Horn standard as its meant to guide PD illumination capable AIM-7F/Ms that don't need CW horn and such (since the 16 blk15 ADF mod came when AIM-7Ms were already in service and no CW horn iirc)? the CW horn is meant to give the APG-66 the ability to guide in CW guided Missiles (Taiwanese APG-66V3s got CW horn modded in for guiding older SARH missiles iirc). But the PLA PL-11/Aspide 1As are already PD guided, not CW. So wouldn't that make the CW horn on the J-8PP pointless? 

unless the APG-66V-PRC-F8 is a mod version of the TW APG-66V3 though i've read that its mostly similar to the APG-66V(1)...

Edited May 8, 2023 by Rowdyhorse4

[Torbernite]

23小时前，Rowdyhorse4说：

iirc APG-66 didn't come with a CW Horn standard as its meant to guide PD illumination capable AIM-7F/Ms that don't need CW horn and such (since the 16 blk15 ADF mod came when AIM-7Ms were already in service and no CW horn iirc)? the CW horn is meant to give the APG-66 the ability to guide in CW guided Missiles (Taiwanese APG-66V3s got CW horn modded in for guiding older SARH missiles iirc). But the PLA PL-11/Aspide 1As are already PD guided, not CW. So wouldn't that make the CW horn on the J-8PP pointless? 

unless the APG-66V-PRC-F8 is a mod version of the TW APG-66V3 though i've read that its mostly similar to the APG-66V(1)...

 

Monopulse seekers have no direct correlation with CW/PD illumination guidance. 7F has the ability to work with PD illumination before the update of monopulse seeker, and many SARH missiles use CW illumination with inverse monopulse seekers.

"Monopulse" here is an expressing of tracking mechanism versus conical scanning. They are used to solve the measurement error caused by the beam width from the radar. Monopulse mechanism was initially used in pulse radar to determine both azimuth or pitch error in one pulse, but later also used in continuous wave system.

It only needs the beam to be encoded or modulated (for example phase modulated in many monopulse radars) but not necessary to be pulse beam. A pair of beams are usable as long as they can be recognized from each other after being reflected from the target. For example, polarized continuous wave beam can also be used.

In monopulse radars, a pair of modulated (thus, "recognizable") beams are sent in slightly different directions and the corresponding return is selectively received, "distinguished" and compared to determine the target is at the left or right side (another pair of beams could be used to determine high/low at the same time).

In monopulse seekers, the beam pairs are sent in one direction but selectively received with pairs of different antennas with slightly different direction to achieve the same effect. You see no "pulse" needed in this mechanism. 

Before the monopulse mechanism, similar work could be done through a multi-pulse way, which sends one beam at a time (or "in one pulse") and another next (or "in next pulse"), then compare the two returns. This mechanism is "monopulse" because the pair of beams are "recognizable" and can be sent and processed simutaneously or "in one pulse", instead of one after another. Because they can be emissed, received and processed at same time, the beams don't need to be pulse any more.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Torbernite
deleted incorrect use of "inverse" seeker, which is in fact describing the signal processing procedure instead of modulated beam emission and receiving

[Rowdyhorse4]

58 minutes ago, Torbernite said:

Monopulse seekers, or accurately inverse monopulse seekers, have no direct correlation with CW/PD illumination guidance. 7F has the ability to work with PD illumination before the update of monopulse seeker, and many SARH missiles use CW illumination with inverse monopulse seekers.

"Monopulse" here is an expressing of tracking mechanism versus conical scanning. They are used to solve the measurement error caused by the beam width from the radar. Monopulse mechanism was initially used in pulse radar to determine both azimuth or pitch error in one pulse, but later also used in continuous wave system.

It only needs the beam to be encoded or modulated (for example phase modulated in many monopulse radars) but not necessary to be pulse beam. A pair of beams are usable as long as they can be recognized from each other after being reflected from the target. For example, polarized continuous wave beam can also be used.

In monopulse radars, a pair of modulated (thus, "recognizable") beams are sent in slightly different directions and the corresponding return is selectively received, "distinguished" and compared to determine the target is at the left or right side (another pair of beams could be used to determine high/low at the same time).

In inverse monopulse seekers, the beam pairs are sent in one direction but selectively received with pairs of different antennas with slightly different direction to achieve the same effect. You see no "pulse" needed in this mechanism. 

Before the monopulse mechanism, similar work could be done through a multi-pulse way, which sends one beam at a time (or "in one pulse") and another next (or "in next pulse"), then compare the two returns. This mechanism is "monopulse" because the pair of beams are "recognizable" and can be sent and processed simutaneously or "in one pulse", instead of one after another. Because they can be emissed, received and processed at same time, the beams don't need to be pulse any more.

 

thanks for information! I appreciate that you've put the time to explain it to me! Also i need to update i was mistaken on the BLK 15 not having a CW illuminator.

If its the case as you say, then how is later SARH missiles guided by radar sets that didn't get CW illuminators like the APG-68?

[Torbernite]

35分钟前，Rowdyhorse4说：

thanks for information! I appreciate that you've put the time to explain it to me! Also i need to update i was mistaken on the BLK 15 not having a CW illuminator.

If its the case as you say, then how is later SARH missiles guided by radar sets that didn't get CW illuminators like the APG-68?

I'm not very professional with this topic beyond basic mechanism. If they don't have, I think maybe it's because CWI is not need. Sparrows after 7F are already able to work with PD illumination, and CW illuminators may become not so necessary if the radar is not intended to be used with earlier version sparrows. However, CW illuminators could attain higher average power with same technical condition and the beam is simple and easier to adapt between illuminator/radar and seeker, so maybe make it easier to design and make the seeker on the missile, so many other SARH missile-radar combinations continue to use CW illuminatior instead of updating the missile to use PD illumination from the normal radar antenna, until replaced by ARH.

Just my speculation. Maybe need some experts to correct me. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Torbernite

[Rowdyhorse4]

2 hours ago, Torbernite said:

I'm not very professional with this topic beyond basic mechanism. If they don't have, I think maybe it's because CWI is not need. Sparrows after 7F are already able to work with PD illumination, and CW illuminators may become not so necessary if the radar is not intended to be used with earlier version sparrows. However, CW illuminators could attain higher average power with same technical condition and the beam is simple and easier to adapt between illuminator/radar and seeker, so maybe make it easier to design and make the seeker on the missile, so many other SARH missile-radar combinations continue to use CW illuminatior instead of updating the missile to use PD illumination from the normal radar antenna, until replaced by ARH.

Just my speculation. Maybe need some experts to correct me. 

 

ah so i guess my original question wasn't fully ignorant at all... 

but rather than the CW Illuminator being added on, it came as part of the APG-66 package (BLK 15 APG-66 has CWI) regardless if the fighter is going to be carrying missiles that don't need CW illumination. (which i guess is the case with the J-8PP, CW illuminator just being part of the APG-66 package even if the PL-11 is PD Illumination capable.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Rowdyhorse4

[Torbernite]

11小时前，Rowdyhorse4说：

ah so i guess my original question wasn't fully ignorant at all... 

but rather than the CW Illuminator being added on, it came as part of the APG-66 package (BLK 15 APG-66 has CWI) regardless if the fighter is going to be carrying missiles that don't need CW illumination. (which i guess is the case with the J-8PP, CW illuminator just being part of the APG-66 package even if the PL-11 is PD Illumination capable.

 

I think the question can be splited into two:

 

1. Why a CWI is needed.

Very possibly, aspide uses CW only and not PD capable. 

As we see before, monopulse seeker doesn't mean PD capable. US provided AIM-7M in PP project, which is CW/PD compatible, but China still turned back to asipide for it's cheaper and Italians could provide technology transfer to produce their own missile in China, instead of just exporting missiles. Late sparrow's PD illumination compatibility is not common in worldwide, and very likely this Italian sparrow lacks this system, just updated the conical scanning seeker from 7E to a monopulse tracking mechanism seeker but continue to use CW illumination. In fact, I read the Spada and Albatros SAM also use CWI with aspide missile, besides Italian use it with F-104S equipped with CWI. However, if you have some more evidence that it's PD capable it would overturn this.

 

2. Why a Chinese CWI is finally chosen instead of choosing a version of APG-66 with original CWI.

APG-66 didn't come with a CWI at the very first. The earliest F-16 have to use AIM-7F in PD mode before OCU and MLU which added CWI to support old version sparrows. Considering the version used in PP project is greatly simplified in function because of price and US is unwilling to provide frequency agility at first, it's very likely to be an early version. 

So why bother to choose a version without CWI and add yours, when there is another version with original CWI? 

Well, the Chinese CWI is probably earlier than PP project. The update of J-8II is intended to use Chinese radar and PL-4 missile (copy of earlier AIM-7 from Vietnam, possibly C or D, with conical scanning seeker) at first, but neither meets the requirement in 1980s. The performance and reliability are totally a mess. The early J-8II with domestic radar is only equipped with PL-8 and not BVR capable.

The further update is somewhat independent for each system. Marconi, Dassault and Israeli suppliers are also considered as avionics updater before the US one is finally chosen, while Chinese didn't decide they must use missile from same country with other avionics. And the aspide missile is considered to be used with Chinese future radar before the PP project, that's why they already have an airborne CWI for aspide when they don't have the missile. 

But the new radar process is not smooth, and even it is, the performance is still not good in 1980-1990s. So finally PP project started to induce foreign avionics including radar to fill the immediate need. In compatibility test with APG-66, the Chinese CWI showed good compatibility, even better reliability than the radar itself, enough performance and "better price" than a US CWI, and it was accepted by Westinghouse. Besides, Chinese don't want to discard their earlier work to have their own CWI + missile in case the foreign equipment would turn unavailable in the future, so they chose to use the domestic one with American radar. 

The ending of PP project proved this decision is wise and they can mount the CWI onto the domestic radar to finish the work to make a BVR fighter.

 

In the whole story you see autonomy and low price everywhere like a ghost. They chose asipide for low price and technology transfer, domestic CWI for low price and own production. That's an age when China is not as rich as today and political situation could also change suddenly. And the military expenditure was also cut to give way to civil economy development. So they have to ensure every military import purchase is necessary and useful at the moment and also good to the future own development. In my words that's an age of hardness and glory for those working in military industry.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Torbernite

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@DisplayName B) center of gravity and difference in weight aside it should fly exactly like J8II because it is J8II, just with modified cockpit, replaced radar and some other electronic equipment like navigation or weapon control system

D) the difference between J8II and F20 is that there are lots of people who have experience flying J8 and can describe its flight characteristics and quirks (with different avionics but still), while there were very few people who flew Tigershark

I'm pretty sure PP was never finished, for instance I don't think it was supposed to end up with SPO-10esque RWR which begs the question what else is missing. But unlike for instance Ka-50 or F20 it's not just a prototype, it's a unicorn variant of real aircraft that actually was in service (and even managed to "Fox 4" American reconnaissance aircraft). Later J8 variants are basically what PP was supposed to be, just using avionics sourced from different country

[probad]

the dcs you enjoy today was built on the backs of abominations like the mig-21 module. you wouldnt even have cold war servers if you wanted to be so anal.

you would do well to remember that we are still just playing pretend here at the end of the day.

Edited June 13, 2023 by probad

[Torbernite]

When the topic selected and approved by ED, it's already useless to complain here. At least, ED doesn't think the project is against their orientation. Don't try to make their choice. 

If you hate it, just don't buy it. If you don't want to see it in your elaborately decorated battleground, don't use it in your mission and ban it in your server. Look for the module of your taste, rather than force other modules into the way you want.

 By the way, except for this thing, legally from deka you will not get anything later than MiG-21 into your red fleet in following 10 or 20 years. Eastern confidentiality laws are not kidding. If you are looking for anything like that don't anchor your hope on deka.

[Torbernite]

6分钟前，DisplayName说：

 

Question: How is the MiG-21 an abomination? I'm no MiG-21 expert so I'm curious to know your thoughts about this. You can PM me so we don't spam this thread with unrelated content about the MiG-21.

Rebuttal: Yes we are playing pretend, but it's in a simulation not a game like War Thunder. Context matters, and that context is what drives the majority of people to DCS in the first place. We should all be advocating for ED to enable F-14 Tomcats to use AIM-120s as standard if this is the new direction or standard that we accept where reality/history doesn't actually matter any more.

 

Note: No one can clearly state if Deka is developing the J8PP which would be inappropriate as the modifications were not even finished let alone legitimate pre-production prototypes; or if they are developing a J8II which would be a fake module due to the speculative assertions in order to produce the module. If the module was to be released specifically as a "J8 Peace Pearl Prototype" and exactly represented the current form (not the planned form) of the ones on display in China; in that case, the module is fair enough I suppose although I would still not agree with it in DCS in this specific situation the aircraft would not be a fake jet.

Now, rather than diverting the attention away from the questions in an attempt to defend the projects validity, just answer questions clearly where possible. No questions have be answered, So! Deka is as of this moment creating a fake jet module which is the short story here. Cool cool, thanks for the clarification. That is all that I was after here; to know what Deka is creating.

1. If you want that answer, then that's yes it will be the exact design and all details would be as its original design, not created by Deka themselves. They have documents and the exact equipment. The aircraft on display was once installed with all those equipment and tested, although now dismounted before into display so you won't find it in museum at present.

2. MiG-21Bis has pretended RSBN/PRMG which works totally differently from the actual ones, which should be a radio assisted dead reckoning equipment instead of a Russian TACAN. The bombing aiming is in need of rebuilding. The CCIP is totally unreal. Only rocket and guns should have it and it needs preset altitude data, instead of radar ranging. Not need to say the Kh-66.

3. Your "question" is already answered in first page, question 2. We answer questions, but not those with spite, conjecture and provocation, raised blindly.

[PLAAF]

On 6/13/2023 at 6:30 PM, DisplayName said:

A) Despite Deka claiming that the Peace Pearl (PP) was finished, all evidence that I have seen would suggest that it was not even up to; or maybe at best at a pre-production prototyping phase. Can anyone, inclusive of Deka, offer evidence that the PP was finished.

Quite a few people have posted many photos showing the finished PP prototype. So what's your problem?

On 6/13/2023 at 6:30 PM, DisplayName said:

B) Considering that the J-8II and the J-8PP are different aircraft, what aircraft is been developed here for this module?

J-8PP is a variant of J-8II. J-8II is a series of aircraft. Just like F-16 have A,B,C,D,E,F, SFW, XL, X, VISTA. etc.

 

On 6/13/2023 at 6:30 PM, DisplayName said:

C) By the fundamental nature of the aircraft in question (PP) not having gone past the pre-production prototyping phase, this would relegate the aircraft to the category of been unsuitable for DCS World; which prides itself as a high fidelity simulation. Deka is simply assuming the end-state of the PP.

Unsuitable? Says who? To whom? Unless you have the majority of ED's share, I doubt it is up to you to decide whether a plane is suitable for DCS. Right now, we are looking at you VS. so many people who want to have it in the game.

If you don't like prototypes in DCS, then my best suggestion for you is "don't play". If I remember correctly IL-2: 1946 had so many prototypes, but everyone loved them. So once again, you are not the majority.

On 6/13/2023 at 6:30 PM, DisplayName said:

D) An example for context: The entire DCS community (or at the minimum the vast majority) has dismissed the F20 Tiger Shark from been represented within DCS despite the fact that the F20 having physically existed, flown, and been put up for offer in its final production state. I am very surprised that this module has any support considering it is more consistent with the approach that Gaijin has with War Thunder where theoretical designs and prototypes are accepted. People also dismiss the F14 from having AIM120 AMRAAMs despite empirical evidence of the Tomcat firing AMRAAMs for evaluation. This module is definitively inconsistent with the core purpose of DCS.

Really? I assume you had a poll and have literally asked everyone in the DCS community about their opinions on F-20. Because I don't remember you asked me. Torbenite, did he ever ask you that question? If you haven't done a poll, how can you even claim the entire DCS community doesn't want F-20? What give you the right to represent the entire DCS community? Have you tried to ask for an F-16XL or F-15SE? I would be happy to make a purchase of those. So stop forcing your definitions onto the DCS community. The world doesn't revolve around your preferences. You are not the director of our lives and we are not actors you hired to act out of your "perfect rule" for a "perfect DCS". We don't like your script and will certainly not follow it.

Plus, what did you mean by "This module is definitively inconsistent with the core purpose of DCS."?? 
What is DCS's "core purpose?? I don't remember ED ever defining it. Or is this just another one of your fantasies?

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by PLAAF

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@DisplayName They aren't different aircrafts, some J8II units were sent to US as test beds to fit into them US avionics. The "only" difference is electronic equipment

[Torbernite]

1小时前，PLAAF说：

 

Really? I assume you had a poll and have literally asked everyone in the DCS community about their opinions on F-20. Because I don't remember you asked me. Torbenite, did he ever ask you that question? If you haven't done a poll, how can you even claim the entire DCS community doesn't want F-20? What give you the right to represent the entire DCS community? Have you tried to ask for an F-16XL or F-15SE? I would be happy to make a purchase of those. So stop forcing your definitions onto the DCS community. The world doesn't revolve around your preferences. You are not the director of our lives and we are not actors you hired to act out of your "perfect rule" for a "perfect DCS". We don't like your script and will certainly not follow it.

 

I'm quite tired of that. His idea is totally an argue of opinions rather than facts. He is just trying to output "what it should be" and forcing what he thinks into what everyone should think, just like what is happening around the world. I would rather argue on the J-8II vs. Su-15 question or what's monopulse seeker, for it would clarify some confusion at least. But this... It is purely wasting my life. Sadly if we have to deal with such a reasonless quarrel every several months we can do nothing meaningful here. If this useless (and answered) question were not excavated again today, I should be working on my translation of public test flight information of J-8. I found many interesting details in that and I think it's also safe to know.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

23 hours ago, DisplayName said:

Confirmed; Deka is producing a fake jet module.

 

 

So, what's the solution? Get into trouble with the relevant authorities for YOUR video game experience? Then again, I'm going to take the word of people being paid to dig up resources as opposed to someone who spent 10 minutes googling.

It certainly isn't get hostile with people over a video game lmao.
 

Edited June 15, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL