Chinese Trainer Aircraft (JL-8, JL-9, JL-10 (L-15), etc.)
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
wanderingmind
New Member
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
After fevered hunting through another bunch of defence forums and sites, etc., I've been unable to find any difference. However, "fly-by-wire" can mean "through fiber optic cables," whereas "fly-by-electric" would mean exactly that! Perhaps there's an electromagnetic pulse vulnerability in FBW that "fly-by-electric" would be less susceptible to!
Well, better go get my first cuppa coffee now. :coffee: Your question was astute enough to divert my normal morning operations...
After fevered hunting through another bunch of defence forums and sites, etc., I've been unable to find any difference. However, "fly-by-wire" can mean "through fiber optic cables," whereas "fly-by-electric" would mean exactly that! Perhaps there's an electromagnetic pulse vulnerability in FBW that "fly-by-electric" would be less susceptible to!
Well, better go get my first cuppa coffee now. :coffee: Your question was astute enough to divert my normal morning operations...
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
Probably the phrase is something that didn't get through proper translation.
Probably the phrase is something that didn't get through proper translation.
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
Seriously, the JL-9 looks like it has a nose that can hold a decent radar the size of an APG-67 or something (radar used in F-20, A-50 and in variant form, the F-CK-1). The JL-9 in my opinion, is almost like a two seater version of the original Grumman Super 7 concept proposed back in the late eighties. Which of course, conceptually morphed into the FC-1 albeit as a totally new aircraft.
The whole concept of the Super 7 revolves around one thing---to get a decent sized radar into a MiG-21F airframe. That is a constant theme in the evolution of the Fishbed. Of course, what the Russians did was to enlarge the nose to hold a larger radar in the inlet cone. This however created new aerodynamic and structural effects in the aircraft, resulting in an extensive redesign of the airframe. The radar in the inlet nose is an pig's ass to maintain; its obviously not very accessible. Like the rest of the world, who dropped the radar in inlet designs early, the Chinese saw the writing in the wall that this is not a good direction. Perhaps one of the reasons why the J-8I and J-7C/D wasn't pursued any further.
As the Super 7 evolved into the FC-1, Chengdu didn't pursue the original Super 7 design traits into evolving the J-7E. Rather it experimented with other nose concept designs like the J-7FS with the A-7 Corsair like nose, and the F-7MF with the J-10 like nose. The F-7MF was being treated like a fallback should the J-10 and FC-1 fail, and in exploring a BVR J-7 concept further. But alas, foreign interest is not there.
By itself the F-7MF would have been the potentially having the largest radar of the renosed J-7 variants. It could potentially hold a radar the size of the F-16 or J-10's, bigger than the original Super 7 concept or the third generation MiG-21.
I suspect Hongdu may be exploring waters for a single seater, but with the lack of interest on the F-7MF, Hongdu's single seater JL-9 may remain in blue print only.
I do think both JL-9 and L-15 can be useful for the PLAAF in a two tiered away, as Dusky Lim and Tphuang had described it. I have to add that the J-7E is a popular plane with PLAAF pilots despite its obsolescence. As I have even given with my Blue Flag Aggressor example in another thread, even some Su-27 veterans prefer to fly this.
However, no JJ-7 ever adopted the double delta wing layout of the J-7E until the JL-9. It does seem a bit late though to finally introduce this with the JL-9, nearly sixteen years after the J-7E debuted. I must note that the double delta of the JL-9 is a bit different from the J-7E, certainly not a direct copy. It does not have the variable camber slats at the front edge and the tip is clipped. I don't know about the total wing area. Its flight characteristics may be different from the J-7E.
In a JL-9 vs. L-15 showdown, the JL-9 certainly has the advantage of using the existing local logistical infrastructure. With a Kunlun I or II it should perform quite sprightly. It's based on a proven design that remains popular with the PLAAF.
The L-15 will probably beat the JL-9 in high AoA maneuvers, and with FBW, it should perform much more like a modern fighter and a better traning ground for pilots to the J-11, J-10 and maybe the FC-1. I would think the airframe itself is more enduring and should take a lot more hard use than the JL-9's. The turbofans could give more flight time and range. The cockpit offers better visibility. The drawback is the potential higher cost of the plane, plus more costs if the engine has to be imported.
Seriously, the JL-9 looks like it has a nose that can hold a decent radar the size of an APG-67 or something (radar used in F-20, A-50 and in variant form, the F-CK-1). The JL-9 in my opinion, is almost like a two seater version of the original Grumman Super 7 concept proposed back in the late eighties. Which of course, conceptually morphed into the FC-1 albeit as a totally new aircraft.
The whole concept of the Super 7 revolves around one thing---to get a decent sized radar into a MiG-21F airframe. That is a constant theme in the evolution of the Fishbed. Of course, what the Russians did was to enlarge the nose to hold a larger radar in the inlet cone. This however created new aerodynamic and structural effects in the aircraft, resulting in an extensive redesign of the airframe. The radar in the inlet nose is an pig's ass to maintain; its obviously not very accessible. Like the rest of the world, who dropped the radar in inlet designs early, the Chinese saw the writing in the wall that this is not a good direction. Perhaps one of the reasons why the J-8I and J-7C/D wasn't pursued any further.
As the Super 7 evolved into the FC-1, Chengdu didn't pursue the original Super 7 design traits into evolving the J-7E. Rather it experimented with other nose concept designs like the J-7FS with the A-7 Corsair like nose, and the F-7MF with the J-10 like nose. The F-7MF was being treated like a fallback should the J-10 and FC-1 fail, and in exploring a BVR J-7 concept further. But alas, foreign interest is not there.
By itself the F-7MF would have been the potentially having the largest radar of the renosed J-7 variants. It could potentially hold a radar the size of the F-16 or J-10's, bigger than the original Super 7 concept or the third generation MiG-21.
I suspect Hongdu may be exploring waters for a single seater, but with the lack of interest on the F-7MF, Hongdu's single seater JL-9 may remain in blue print only.
I do think both JL-9 and L-15 can be useful for the PLAAF in a two tiered away, as Dusky Lim and Tphuang had described it. I have to add that the J-7E is a popular plane with PLAAF pilots despite its obsolescence. As I have even given with my Blue Flag Aggressor example in another thread, even some Su-27 veterans prefer to fly this.
However, no JJ-7 ever adopted the double delta wing layout of the J-7E until the JL-9. It does seem a bit late though to finally introduce this with the JL-9, nearly sixteen years after the J-7E debuted. I must note that the double delta of the JL-9 is a bit different from the J-7E, certainly not a direct copy. It does not have the variable camber slats at the front edge and the tip is clipped. I don't know about the total wing area. Its flight characteristics may be different from the J-7E.
In a JL-9 vs. L-15 showdown, the JL-9 certainly has the advantage of using the existing local logistical infrastructure. With a Kunlun I or II it should perform quite sprightly. It's based on a proven design that remains popular with the PLAAF.
The L-15 will probably beat the JL-9 in high AoA maneuvers, and with FBW, it should perform much more like a modern fighter and a better traning ground for pilots to the J-11, J-10 and maybe the FC-1. I would think the airframe itself is more enduring and should take a lot more hard use than the JL-9's. The turbofans could give more flight time and range. The cockpit offers better visibility. The drawback is the potential higher cost of the plane, plus more costs if the engine has to be imported.
eecsmaster
Junior Member
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
I thought the FTC-2000 is the export name of the JL-9?
I thought the FTC-2000 is the export name of the JL-9?
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
I guess this time CATIC didn't want JL-15 to have all the spotlight, so it put Shanying out there.
yep, that's what it should be.
I guess this time CATIC didn't want JL-15 to have all the spotlight, so it put Shanying out there.
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
single seat JL-15 is being develop as ground attack aircraft.this mean that Q-5 may already plan for phase out.
single seat JL-15 is being develop as ground attack aircraft.this mean that Q-5 may already plan for phase out.
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
Where did you get this news??? just curious about it because i always thought JH-7 Was the replacement of Q-5 and JL-15 as a interceptor style light aircraft
Where did you get this news??? just curious about it because i always thought JH-7 Was the replacement of Q-5 and JL-15 as a interceptor style light aircraft
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
this is kind of interesting.
I read on the Chinese forum that L-15 is failing to attract orders from plaaf. In fact, according to one of the guys working in a factory that produces avionics for plaaf, they have receive no bids for avionics on L-15 (which they've had for pretty much every other fighter in plaaf)
this is kind of interesting.
I read on the Chinese forum that L-15 is failing to attract orders from plaaf. In fact, according to one of the guys working in a factory that produces avionics for plaaf, they have receive no bids for avionics on L-15 (which they've had for pretty much every other fighter in plaaf)
Re: JL-15 and other trainers
The L-15 just had its maiden flight this year in 2006:
It's prolly still a product under development and not ready for mass production.
I do however think it's a surperior platform than K-8 or JL-9. If by chance the L-15 fails, I think the PLAAF should prolly consider licensing the Yak-130 for domestic assembly/production, both trainer and ground attack versions.
The L-15 just had its maiden flight this year in 2006:
It's prolly still a product under development and not ready for mass production.
I do however think it's a surperior platform than K-8 or JL-9. If by chance the L-15 fails, I think the PLAAF should prolly consider licensing the Yak-130 for domestic assembly/production, both trainer and ground attack versions.