The Q-5, J-7, J-8 and older PLAAF aircraft
- Thread starter adeptitus
- Start date
Miragedriver
Brigadier
This weekend I sat down and re-watched some of the old dogfight series from the Discovery channel (great series by the way). An interesting theme that recurred in all of the pilot interviews was how the advantage of speed (in the initial attack) was so important in the beginning of an attack. Then it became a question of which aircraft was more manoeuvrable and pilot skill in the actual dogfight. The speed in the initial attack, from a higher altitude than the enemy, was to provide the BVR missile system a better position and additional range (due to being higher and in a frontal arc attack). This they (the Pilots) mentioned was achieved with after burners.
I began thinking of our venerable old J-7 or its new version the FTC-2000G. There have been many posts on this thread regarding the viability of the aircraft to be able to carry two WVR missiles and two BVR missiles. This scenario leaves the J-7/FTC-2000G with only one drop tank. With the short legs of the aircraft and carrying four missiles, I cannot we it being effective in the BVR arena. Imagine the aircraft flying CAP (less than a two hour endurance) and spotting a target (presumable another fighter aircraft and must likely superior than the J-7/FTC-2000G). The pilot goes to full afterburner and initiates a shallow dive towards the enemy (assuming that the enemy was not spotted him first and fired first with his BVR missiles) and first one or both BVR missiles.
At this point he has a couple of option. Not all in his favour:
1) He can track the missiles to his target and risk being hit by the enemy missile(s);
2) If he continues to close he could get involved in a dogfight, assuming he has sufficient fuel to be involved in aerial combat and then return home;
3) He could turn tail and run and hope he has sufficient fuel to return home.
Since the J-7/FTC-2000G is considered a point defence interceptor. The most likely scenario is that it will be attacking from below as it climbs to intercept. Placing the aircraft (and pilot) at a disadvantage. It seems that one of the many limiting factor of this aircraft type is its limited endurance especially with afterburner.
Any Thoughts?
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
I began thinking of our venerable old J-7 or its new version the FTC-2000G. There have been many posts on this thread regarding the viability of the aircraft to be able to carry two WVR missiles and two BVR missiles. This scenario leaves the J-7/FTC-2000G with only one drop tank. With the short legs of the aircraft and carrying four missiles, I cannot we it being effective in the BVR arena. Imagine the aircraft flying CAP (less than a two hour endurance) and spotting a target (presumable another fighter aircraft and must likely superior than the J-7/FTC-2000G). The pilot goes to full afterburner and initiates a shallow dive towards the enemy (assuming that the enemy was not spotted him first and fired first with his BVR missiles) and first one or both BVR missiles.
At this point he has a couple of option. Not all in his favour:
1) He can track the missiles to his target and risk being hit by the enemy missile(s);
2) If he continues to close he could get involved in a dogfight, assuming he has sufficient fuel to be involved in aerial combat and then return home;
3) He could turn tail and run and hope he has sufficient fuel to return home.
Since the J-7/FTC-2000G is considered a point defence interceptor. The most likely scenario is that it will be attacking from below as it climbs to intercept. Placing the aircraft (and pilot) at a disadvantage. It seems that one of the many limiting factor of this aircraft type is its limited endurance especially with afterburner.
Any Thoughts?
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
thunderchief
Senior Member
J-7 is a Mig-21 derivative, and standard tactics for Mig-21 working as interceptor was to be vectored behind and slightly above the target . After contact, Mig-21 pilot would dive and position itself slightly below the target , launch and quickly depart without wasting time and energy in turning fight .
In a present time, with proliferation of AWACSs and long range radars, it is doubtful that any 3rd gen fighter could get into this ideal position. More realistic situation would be launching missiles at extreme ranges , hoping to force invading aircraft to turn back, dump stores etc ...
In a present time, with proliferation of AWACSs and long range radars, it is doubtful that any 3rd gen fighter could get into this ideal position. More realistic situation would be launching missiles at extreme ranges , hoping to force invading aircraft to turn back, dump stores etc ...
Miragedriver
Brigadier
I’ve read several articles debating the virtues and the utter stupidity of having J-7/FTC-2000G in any air force. A boiled down argument from both side is along the following lines:
Con: This modernized second generation aircraft has no place in any air force since it has short legs, limited or no BVR capability, airframe cannot handle more than 8g, all aluminium air frame (no composites), bad cockpit visibility……
Pro: In expensive to buy and maintain, can support your better 4+ generation aircraft, an inexpensive airframe to provide flight hours to pilots, serves two purposes……….
I tend to agree that I does provide inexpensive flight hours for pilots, but that its value to support 4+ generation aircraft is limited to taking hits from incoming missiles. Not a happy prospect for those pilots.
Any thoughts?
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
My thoughts are more pro having them.
It is always an arms race, but the law of physics is that you may have a few super duper weapon systems but they can't be everywhere at the same time. Quantity have a quality of its own, sure they are not that capable but they are also an air force in being. if you have a squadron of 4x... griphens/mirages/expensive-fighter and is getting beaten by a larger neighbor who can send a fleet of bombers your way. How many bombers can you shoot down in a sortie? If that larger neighbor sends in a raid of 50 bombers... most would get through and those that do, carry massive damage potentials. What if you have 20 J7s? you will need alot more bombers to punch through; or you need to eradicate the airforce first, or use cruise missiles which is nothing like the damage potential of a heavy bomber.
between the MTBR and other disruptions, you lose a J7, you sill have 95% of your force, you lose a griphen, thats 25% gone.
To me, the dreadnought race is the same. The Yamatos are fine ships, maybe even the best, but what good are they when you can only field two? where the USA can field ten contemporary Iowas, South Dakotas and North Carolinas? At the end of the day, they were too precious to be risked, aka, didn't contribute to the war..
Miragedriver
Brigadier
That seems logical. An aircraft like the FTC-2000G has its place as a vehicle to provide cheap flight hours to pilots and to server as a point defence interceptor. Perhaps even in support of the better multi-roll platforms, but not as the backbone of your fighter force. Unless your opponent is only fielding Mirages III’s, Mig-21’s or F-5’s.
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
thunderchief
Senior Member
If your neighbor has large dedicated bomber force you won't be able to do much with your 3rd gen fighters because countries with large bomber forces usually have lots of fighters to escort them, AWACS, jamming platforms etc ...
More realistic scenario would be : country A has 50 4th gen fighter-bombers , country B has only 10 but it also has 20-30 older fighters which could be upgraded . Therefore, if country A wants to attack country B it would need to use large proportion of its planes as escorts because even upgraded 3rd gen fighters could launch long range missiles and force planes carrying ground-attack munitions to drop them .
More realistic scenario would be : country A has 50 4th gen fighter-bombers , country B has only 10 but it also has 20-30 older fighters which could be upgraded . Therefore, if country A wants to attack country B it would need to use large proportion of its planes as escorts because even upgraded 3rd gen fighters could launch long range missiles and force planes carrying ground-attack munitions to drop them .
Miragedriver
Brigadier
So in essences you see a force ratio of 1 good 4+ generation aircraft in combination with 2 or 3 upgraded 3 generation aircraft. This mixed force working together with AWACs and/or ground control radar?
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I think you just answered your own question.
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Thanks, Sometimes the obvious stares you in the face
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec