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

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I’m guessing that twin tails provide more yaw control authority under the same specific flight regimes (low altitude, low airspeed) that are critically important for carrier landings. The added stability wouldn’t hurt either.

AJTs can be programmed to simulate the performance characteristics of different frontline combat jets, but I think sometimes people forget that the AJT airframe itself first needs the be able to achieve the level of performance it is meant to simulate. So it looks like the performance deficit of single tail vs the navy’s twin tail combat jets is big enough to warrant them paying for a dedicated new trainer with twin tails.

If this is the case, then that would also explain why the navy has never bothered to seriously use existing jet trainers for carrier pilot training and continues to use twin seat J15s.
 

Tomboy

Junior Member
Registered Member
CGI i know but since this is a pretty unknown/unseen type it would be illustrative to see it's expected appearance, until we get better/clearer images.
View attachment 157181
View attachment 157182
View attachment 157183
I know this is CGI speculation but wouldn't the flat angular nose, clipped vertical stabilizer and seemingly edge aligned intake(from the patents) mean some form of LO is being considered for the design?
 
I know this is CGI speculation but wouldn't the flat angular nose, clipped vertical stabilizer and seemingly edge aligned intake(from the patents) mean some form of LO is being considered for the design?
Why waste money on adding LO characteristics to a trainer? Unless its also intended for export as a light fighter?
 

Tomboy

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why waste money on adding LO characteristics to a trainer? Unless its also intended for export as a light fighter?
It could be, USAF considered turning T-7A into a light fighter for domestic use and export. In fact, I believe most if not all advanced supersonic trainers had a light combat variant for either domestic use or export. Also is adding a bit of LO shaping that cost prohibitive these days? Low-cost stealth/LO demonstrators are pretty prevalent right now.
 

mack8

Junior Member
It could be, USAF considered turning T-7A into a light fighter for domestic use and export. In fact, I believe most if not all advanced supersonic trainers had a light combat variant for either domestic use or export. Also is adding a bit of LO shaping that cost prohibitive these days? Low-cost stealth/LO demonstrators are pretty prevalent right now.
My thinking as well, this looks more like a PLAAF/PLANAF T-7 rather than just a modified L-15. If the CGIs are accurate it seems to have AB engines so it's supersonic, and it would be an ideal replacement for the obsolete FTC-2000 in the export market, with AESA and BVR missiles offering pretty decent capabilities at low cost. Though not quite sure how cost and capability compare to FC-1.
 
Top