Chinese Trainer Aircraft (JL-8, JL-9, JL-10 (L-15), etc.)

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

escobar said:

i think PLAAF need both jl-9 and l-15
the first will play the role of trainer for plane like j-10 ,j-11 and
the second for j-xx
what do you think semi?

Click to expand...

I don't really know what exactly the PLAAF is planning to replace the JJ-7. The JL-8/L-11 have already replaced the JJ-6 and production for domestic J-7s and JJ-7s has also ended IIRC. The current PLAAF is muddled as it is, the PLAAF wants to streamline the amount of aircraft it has and not have so many different types from so many different companies all at once since it makes maintenace a problem. I think it would be best served with one type of advance LIFT trainer that can be expected to continously serve the PLAAF's trainer requirements for many years, such as the USAF T-38 Talons, which have been flying for nearly 50 years now. From a political standpoint it should also be exportable, within the next decade or so a lot of the 70's era trainers such as the prolific Aero L-39 will be retired which will open up a huge export market, It would be wise to have an aircraft that can be exported widely to replace them.

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

Semi-Lobster said:

I don't really know what exactly the PLAAF is planning to replace the JJ-9. The JL-8/L-11 have already replaced the JJ-6 and production for domestic J-7s and JJ-7s has also ended IIRC. The current PLAAF is muddled as it is, the PLAAF wants to streamline the amount of aircraft it has and not have so many different types from so many different companies all at once since it makes maintenace a problem. I think it would be best served with one type of advance LIFT trainer that can be expected to continously serve the PLAAF's trainer requirements for many years, such as the USAF T-38 Talons, which have been flying for nearly 50 years now. From a political standpoint it should also be exportable, within the next decade or so a lot of the 70's era trainers such as the prolific Aero L-39 will be retired which will open up a huge export market, It would be wise to have an aircraft that can be exported widely to replace them.

Click to expand...

i always request why they have so many different companies
for social reason or what??

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

escobar said:

i always request why they have so many different companies
for social reason or what??

Click to expand...

In 1999 the single state owned Chinese AVIC corporation and its subsidiary companies was split into AVIC I and AVIC II. I to handle large aircraft construction and II to handle small aircraft construction. This was done to encourage competition between the companies to increase innovation and to lower production costs but this infact just led to a split it resources and a bunch of redundant projects so AVIC I and II were re-merged in 2008. The JL-9 and the L-15 are an example of these 'redundant projects' I guess

Re: JL-15 and other trainers



Hmmm... according to this image from AssassinsMace, the JL-9 looks like it will use the WP-14III/C! I guess we can throw out all of our previous JL-9 statistics out the window because the WP-14 should give the JL-9 a substantial boost in its speed, agility and overall performance. From this chart says that the WP-14III produces 82kN of thrust which is a HUGE improvement over the WP-13F, which was the previous JL-9 engine which produces 44.1kN dry and 66.7kN with afterburners. The list also talks about the JL-9 using the WS-12 Taishan engine, a turbofan engine that is slightly less powerful but, given the nature of turbofan engines compared to turbojets, would be more fuel efficient and certainly less of a gass guzzler

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

That engine will make a serious hot rod out of a J-7 or J-8II if they're intending to do this. They can have a thrust to weight unity (1:1) even near full combat loads.

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

crobato said:

That engine will make a serious hot rod out of a J-7 or J-8II if they're intending to do this. They can have a thrust to weight unity (1:1) even near full combat loads.

Click to expand...

Combining that with the J-7E/JL-9 double delta wing configuration with either the turbofan WS-12 (which would probably be a better choice for a trainer) or the even more powerful WP-14C would probably make up for the JL-9's lack of LERX although from what I've read the L-15's AL-222K-25F are rated at 91.2 kN

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

A LERX is in effect, a double delta. Thus having a double delta makes a LERX redundant.

An 82kn engine on a J-7 or two on a J-8II is some power indeed, considering that a J-7 is with a full internal fuel and a couple of AAMs is about 7500kg. That's like approximately over 8300kgs of thrust in that engine, giving you a TWR of 1.10 or 10% over unity (1:1). A J-8II with full internal fuel and four AAMs is roughly around 14000 to 15000kg estimated. Two of those engines means 16700 plus kg. That can give a J-8II weighing at 15,000kg with fuel and AAMs, a ratio of 1.11. These are late F-16C to Typhoon levels. In comparison, a Gripen, JF-17 or an F-CK-1 is around 0.90.

Third generation fighters which the MiG-21 belonged to, and also includes the F-104 Starfighter, F-4 Phantom and Mirage III, generally has a range of 0.55 to 0.85 at best.

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

crobato said:

A LERX is in effect, a double delta. Thus having a double delta makes a LERX redundant.

An 82kn engine on a J-7 or two on a J-8II is some power indeed, considering that a J-7 is with a full internal fuel and a couple of AAMs is about 7500kg. That's like approximately over 8300kgs of thrust in that engine, giving you a TWR of 1.10 or 10% over unity (1:1). A J-8II with full internal fuel and four AAMs is roughly around 14000 to 15000kg estimated. Two of those engines means 16700 plus kg. That can give a J-8II weighing at 15,000kg with fuel and AAMs, a ratio of 1.11. These are late F-16C to Typhoon levels. In comparison, a Gripen, JF-17 or an F-CK-1 is around 0.90.

Third generation fighters which the MiG-21 belonged to, and also includes the F-104 Starfighter, F-4 Phantom and Mirage III, generally has a range of 0.55 to 0.85 at best.

Click to expand...

Even the 80kn WS-12 would be very impressive on the JL-9, I guess this gives Guizhou a lot of rooms to manoeuvre with the JL-9 design, having the option of the high performance WP-14C turbojet engine or the cost effective and long life WS-12 turbofan engine compared to Hongdu who are using a licenced copy which would also be useful for export. BTW does anybody know who will br making the AL-222K-25F? I remember that a contract for the Ukrainian engine was signed but I don't think Hongdu has a whole of experience with building engines compared to Liyang or Liming?

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

Put a single seat on the JL-9 and its a fighter. This "trainer" is a thinly disguised fighter for one thing. Actually if the JL-9 is a single seater, its a reincarnation of the original Super-7 concept Grumman proposed to China before the Tianammen Square event. The nose is big enough to hold a small BVR capable radar like the KLJ-6E and you got a PL-12 ready aircraft for cheap.

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

crobato said:

Put a single seat on the JL-9 and its a fighter. This "trainer" is a thinly disguised fighter for one thing. Actually if the JL-9 is a single seater, its a reincarnation of the original Super-7 concept Grumman proposed to China before the Tianammen Square event. The nose is big enough to hold a small BVR capable radar like the KLJ-6E and you got a PL-12 ready aircraft for cheap.

Click to expand...

Well unlike 'most' conventional LIFT trainers, the JL-9 is actually, completely 'full sized' which makes it rather suspicious. Its completely unfounded but I wouldn't be surprised if the 'trainer' designation was placed for the domestic PLAAF requirements for a trainer while being actively marketted overseas as a fighter since the JL-9 has obviously been surpassed by existing PLAAF aircraft in that field. Given Guizhou's unusual eagerness to give it an export designation (FTC-2000), I think the export market is where they see the brightest future and the 'trainer' designation is also to avoid ruffling the feathers at Chengdu and the FC-1 since they would be after pretty much the same market (poor 2nd and 3rd world countries looking to finally upgrade their existing fleet of MiG-21s and perhaps very old MiG-29s to something in the 4th generation) but would have an advantage of being similiar to an existing aircraft (the MiG-21/J-7) and being even cheaper than the FC-1. As for the nose there is speculation that it is already BVR capable to some extent, either with the Firo S-7 or, like you mentioned before, the KLJ-6E. I can see a single seat JL-9 with more advanced, modern avionics and a glass cockpit coming out in the next few years aimed directly for export at around 8-10 million and I wouldn't be surprised if it finds many buyers looking for an even lower cost solution to their air defence needs than the FC-1! Afterall, countries like Nigera are actually still in the process of buying new F-7 variants! A souped up JL-9 could certainly attract buyers such as this while giving China a cart blanche for supplying and maintaing these new aircraft.

EDIT: Grammar mistakes