Chinese Trainer Aircraft (JL-8, JL-9, JL-10 (L-15), etc.)
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
This entire thread has a lot of good posts by tphuang dissecting all the information about the L-15 and so far, it seems that the L-15 isn't the silver bullet a lot of analyst thought it would be for the PLAAF. Its a good aircraft for sure but its future is still up in the air.
Thats the long term goal but, like the J-10 or the J-11 have proven, may take a long, long time.
Its nice to see but the article seems to focus more on the American pilot than the actual simulator itself!
This entire thread has a lot of good posts by tphuang dissecting all the information about the L-15 and so far, it seems that the L-15 isn't the silver bullet a lot of analyst thought it would be for the PLAAF. Its a good aircraft for sure but its future is still up in the air.
Lion said:
Thats the long term goal but, like the J-10 or the J-11 have proven, may take a long, long time.
SteelBird said:
Its nice to see but the article seems to focus more on the American pilot than the actual simulator itself!
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
I've been reading up on the LFC-16/CY-1 light fighter recently (it seems to me like a miltarised JL-9) and noticed that it hasn't really been mentioned at all for years. Did this project go the same way as the J-7MF?
I've been reading up on the LFC-16/CY-1 light fighter recently (it seems to me like a miltarised JL-9) and noticed that it hasn't really been mentioned at all for years. Did this project go the same way as the J-7MF?
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
pretty much, anything that appears in airshow that early on is basically trying to get export orders. If they don't get it, it's pretty much end of the project.
pretty much, anything that appears in airshow that early on is basically trying to get export orders. If they don't get it, it's pretty much end of the project.
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
Hmm, thats a shame, it would make an interesting side-project. With the JL-9 having such a long time both in the lab and in the air now, not a great deal of time and energy would really be necessary to invest into LFC-16 which would more or less be the JL-9 with canards and a combat radar. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2008-2009 quotes the price of the JL-9 (sans radar) to be a mere 2.4 million dollars per aircraft, conceivably a miltarised JL-9 would only be $5-6 million, thats an amazing price for a fighter aircraft.
Hmm, thats a shame, it would make an interesting side-project. With the JL-9 having such a long time both in the lab and in the air now, not a great deal of time and energy would really be necessary to invest into LFC-16 which would more or less be the JL-9 with canards and a combat radar. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2008-2009 quotes the price of the JL-9 (sans radar) to be a mere 2.4 million dollars per aircraft, conceivably a miltarised JL-9 would only be $5-6 million, thats an amazing price for a fighter aircraft.
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
that's exactly why L-15 is getting nothing now. Even though it's on paper a superior aircraft in every way, PLAAF is more interested in getting an aircraft that is good enough and can fill the numbers rather than the best possible aircraft that is 3 times as expensive. US could take a cue from that. And it goes for the other high profile trainers like T-50 and Yak-130 too. Why spend that much money on a trainer when a two seater of a 4th generation plane is far better for training?
that's exactly why L-15 is getting nothing now. Even though it's on paper a superior aircraft in every way, PLAAF is more interested in getting an aircraft that is good enough and can fill the numbers rather than the best possible aircraft that is 3 times as expensive. US could take a cue from that. And it goes for the other high profile trainers like T-50 and Yak-130 too. Why spend that much money on a trainer when a two seater of a 4th generation plane is far better for training?
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
Well the T-50 is taking a similar route with the F/A-50 being developed right now but I think I agree, with the advancements in training simulator software extremely capable and expensive training aircraft that are only slightly less expensive than the aircraft they are training for are not as useful as they once were. Is flight training software advanced enough to solely train a pilot though? I'm not quiet convinced though, in the case of the relatively small PLANAF requirements for say, a carrierborne trainer, the L-15 probably most closely meet their requirements but for the PLAAF with such a massive fleet of aircraft, costs cutting mus be vitally important.
As for the LFC-16, my Chinese reading skills are pretty horrible, do you know if there was more to it than just some canards? Was it to have FBW instead of mechanical controls for example?
Well the T-50 is taking a similar route with the F/A-50 being developed right now but I think I agree, with the advancements in training simulator software extremely capable and expensive training aircraft that are only slightly less expensive than the aircraft they are training for are not as useful as they once were. Is flight training software advanced enough to solely train a pilot though? I'm not quiet convinced though, in the case of the relatively small PLANAF requirements for say, a carrierborne trainer, the L-15 probably most closely meet their requirements but for the PLAAF with such a massive fleet of aircraft, costs cutting mus be vitally important.
As for the LFC-16, my Chinese reading skills are pretty horrible, do you know if there was more to it than just some canards? Was it to have FBW instead of mechanical controls for example?
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
Since JL-9 is also based on the basic J-7 airframe, mainly with modifications to the intake and forward fuselage, would it really have been necessary for the Chinese to pursue the LFC-16 and J-7FM simultaneously? Perhaps if they had chose to just fund one over the other from the get-go, then one of the two projects would've reached fruition. I guess in the end, they figured that either of the aircrafts would be competing for the same market as the FC-1, which already is a low-cost alternative to nations that cannot afford the F-16 or Mig-29. However, I still think that either of the aircraft would offer advantages in lower-cost as well as having Chinese made engines.
Side note- the F-5/T-38 would be an American example of an advanced trainer evolving into a combat fighter.
Since JL-9 is also based on the basic J-7 airframe, mainly with modifications to the intake and forward fuselage, would it really have been necessary for the Chinese to pursue the LFC-16 and J-7FM simultaneously? Perhaps if they had chose to just fund one over the other from the get-go, then one of the two projects would've reached fruition. I guess in the end, they figured that either of the aircrafts would be competing for the same market as the FC-1, which already is a low-cost alternative to nations that cannot afford the F-16 or Mig-29. However, I still think that either of the aircraft would offer advantages in lower-cost as well as having Chinese made engines.
Side note- the F-5/T-38 would be an American example of an advanced trainer evolving into a combat fighter.
Last edited:
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
The J-7MF project has been 'dead' for a while as far as everybody can tell(also it was a Chengdu project, LFC-16 is/was a Guizhou project IIRC). I don't really think though that the LFC-16 would really interfere with the FC-1 sales though. You could potentially buy 2 LFC-16s for 1 FC-1, also look at the countries considering the FC-1, Azerbaijan, Sudan etc. these are growing 3rd and 2nd world economies that can afford the FC-1, my guess is that the LFC-16 would be more marketed to very poor countries with little to no standing airforce such as Namibia who only a few years ago bought new F-7s. Of course though, from the looks of it, the LFC-16 is dead.
The J-7MF project has been 'dead' for a while as far as everybody can tell(also it was a Chengdu project, LFC-16 is/was a Guizhou project IIRC). I don't really think though that the LFC-16 would really interfere with the FC-1 sales though. You could potentially buy 2 LFC-16s for 1 FC-1, also look at the countries considering the FC-1, Azerbaijan, Sudan etc. these are growing 3rd and 2nd world economies that can afford the FC-1, my guess is that the LFC-16 would be more marketed to very poor countries with little to no standing airforce such as Namibia who only a few years ago bought new F-7s. Of course though, from the looks of it, the LFC-16 is dead.