The Q-5, J-7, J-8 and older PLAAF aircraft

duskylim

duskylim

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Miragedriver said:
Young pilots from North sea fleet carry out night training on JL-9

[video=youtube;pQcg92EqwW8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQcg92EqwW8&feature=player_embedded[/video]

I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
Click to expand...

Yes, I did notice that it was a JL-9 and NOT a JL-9G.

Why?

Shouldn't they be using the JL-9G for their training?

Furthermore it appears the landing was conventional approach with a flare touchdown.

This suggests that they are just beginning to familiarize themselves with the JL-9 and its characteristics rather than undertaking the 'real thing' with the JL-9G.

Just my 2 cents.
 
duskylim

duskylim

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Miragedriver said:
Very attractive little aircraft:

wTGOUPQ.jpg


dmIG75g.jpg


QhfDqIk.jpg




I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
Click to expand...

Great post!

If I remember correctly, this aircraft was a smaller, somewhat swept-wing version of the MiG-21 airframe and used just one of the 2 engines of the MiG-19.

All the more remarkable was that it had comparable performance to the MiG-19 (in speed, I think) on a single engine.

All with excellent short field performance and good maneuverability.

I wonder why it was not inducted into the PLAAF?
 
thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
duskylim said:
I wonder why it was not inducted into the PLAAF?
Click to expand...

At that point of time (70's) avionics were relatively big and cumbersome . It was not possible to create small enough radar to fit J-12 nose. Overall, aircraft was considered better then J-6 in air-to-air combat (not in air-to-ground tho) , but J-6 was already obsolete . Compared to J-7 , it was more nimble but slower, and as I said before, J-7 at least had some radar . Overall, J-12 was at least 10 years late - it could have done well in Vietnam war, but at the time it supposed to be introduced into service first F-16s were coming online so as a fighter without radar it would be anachronism .
 
Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Blackstone said:
New wing configuration looks good, but the Mig-21 tail elevators look dated. JF-17 elevators would look nicer.
Click to expand...

Reminds of the old Ford Falcons in Argentina where they just changed the front grill and the rear lights and kept launching the car as new. Car was in production for 30 years.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
 
P

POKL

New Member
As much as I really like the comparison with the Ford I beg to differ in regard to the JL 9.

When compared with the MiG-21U / JJ 7 the JL 9 has new wings, a new nose section with a cone allowing for a radar, a new cockpit – BTW one offering much better visibility than in the ‘Mongol’ – side intakes and AFAIK also new avionics. What is left from the MiG-21U / JJ 7 is the rear fuselage & tail. So IMHO it is not an old aircraft with some cosmetic changes but de facto a new aircraft with an old tail. I guess the Chinese could have also redesigned the tail to give it different looks but would it be really necessary?

I am a little surprised that the JL 9 / FTC-2000 did not get any export orders – at least I do not know of any. Also I am of the opinion that it could make a good affordable fighter aircraft for some African, Asian & Latin American AFs if a single seat version would be developed (not a real problem – delete one seat and fill the space with an additional fuel tanks or avionics). One thing it would have to get though to be of real combat value would be a PGM capability. There are a multitude of reasons for which in a modern conflict (even a low intensity one) you can not go without PGMs (I will elaborate on this in a separate post). Yet this capability can be obtained with relative ease & cost effectively by means of a targeting pod with TV / LTD.

There are many reasons why a light and thus affordable fighter would be great for smaller AFs – I have elaborated on this in post # 242. Yet for reasons I do not fully comprehend (well I have an idea that it may have to do with corruption) many small AFs seem to go by the motto if we can not have F 16 / Typhoons / Rafales than we do not want to have any fighter jets at all or we will fly to death some old pieces of junk fit for a museum.

As for the use by the Chinese naval aviation I really wonder why this aircraft was chosen for flight deck training. I would think the JL 9G has substantially different flight characteristics when compared with the J 15. Of course the Rus have used a modified version of the Su 25 for carrier deck training with the Su 25 also substantially differing in its flight characteristics from the Su 27 / 33. Yet in their case it was so because it was available and they could not be picky for budgetary reasons in the early 90-ties. Since in the Chinese case the circumstances are different I am still wondering why the choice of the JL 9G?
 
Last edited:
thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
Don't get me wrong, JL-9 is a nice advanced trainer, but to put it simply - it's not a fighter. It has relatively obsolete engine similar to J-7 but no inlet cone . Instead, it uses solid radome and two DSIs . Of course, this is a better configuration for placing avionics, but it also increases drag. Max speed is said to be around 1.5 Mach, I suspect that in real life conditions aircraft armed with let's say two AAMs needs lot of time to go supersonic (critical for mission of controlling airspace in peacetime) .

Grifo radar offered in export version is a as much hindrance as a help. It has relatively decent specs , but potential buyers could be turned off with prospect of buying and maintaining Western equipment (cost, potential embargo etc .. ) It would be far better for China to offer complete Chinese package for JL-9 , if they already decided not to use foreign engines . Foreign avionics should be mentioned only as an accessory at request of the buyer .

Finally, JL-9 is often mentioned as a light strike aircraft. That could be one of the main selling points, but then you would need to integrate latest Chinese air-to-ground weapons and equipment, including MAWS, laser designator pods etc ...
 
P

POKL

New Member
Dear Thud, I get your point but my point is different.

Allow me first to use a naval analogy. Let us look at OPVs. They are not destroyers or frigates and they are not meant to fight it out with for example a USN surface action group. Yet in order to effectively carry out their task such vessels have to have a certain size because of seaworthiness and endurance, they have guns and radars (possibly other weapons & sensors) and frequently also a helideck (sometimes even a hangar). A motor boat will just not cut it when it comes to effectively patrolling off shore waters and deal with territorial waters violators, smugglers and the like.

The same here. Such a light fighter is not meant for long range quasi – strategic strike with satellite guided gliding bombs or to battle it out in BVR air combat with Raptors. It would be more an ‘air sovereignty’ or an ‘air policing’ fighter. An aircraft meant to protect the airspace of a given country against various peace time threats or war against a low tech / limited capabilities enemy. Sometimes when you do not have an aerial asset with even a modest A2A capability they only thing you can do is to look up and watch as drug smugglers or terrorist do their nefarious things – buying an aircraft on the commercial market is not really a problem.

When it comes to the PGM capability I mentioned it is necessary because with todays proliferation of weapons even terror groups can have MANPADS or DShK (other 12, 7 mm / cal. .05 heavy MGs) or even light cannons. When you have only free fall bombs and unguided rockets in order to have a chance of hitting anything you have to go in low and expose yourself to such threats. With PGMs you can drop a bomb or fire a missile from considerable distance with a very high hit probability (though of course not 100%) and even if theoretically in range of MANPADS or heavy MGs / light cannons the launching aircraft will be only a small speck in the distant sky very hard to see and thus hard to hit. PGMs can also considerably reduce collateral damage (though not eliminate it 100%) and have other advantages.

Are there costs involved – sure they are, but every capability must cost. Would they have to be integrated with the aircraft – true but that goes for every system. Yet this is not Star Wars technology so expensive only the Rothschild could pay for it. The Chinese have shown the ability to develop & deliver electronics & weapons at a bargain basement prices when compared to others.

And yes this is not the right stuff if you intend to wage high intensity war against a high tech enemy but would be IMHO just the right thing for many third world AFs which face limited threats.

So much for now – I am going on vacation.
 
Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
POKL said:
Dear Thud, I get your point but my point is different.

Allow me first to use a naval analogy. Let us look at OPVs. They are not destroyers or frigates and they are not meant to fight it out with for example a USN surface action group. Yet in order to effectively carry out their task such vessels have to have a certain size because of seaworthiness and endurance, they have guns and radars (possibly other weapons & sensors) and frequently also a helideck (sometimes even a hangar). A motor boat will just not cut it when it comes to effectively patrolling off shore waters and deal with territorial waters violators, smugglers and the like.

The same here. Such a light fighter is not meant for long range quasi – strategic strike with satellite guided gliding bombs or to battle it out in BVR air combat with Raptors. It would be more an ‘air sovereignty’ or an ‘air policing’ fighter. An aircraft meant to protect the airspace of a given country against various peace time threats or war against a low tech / limited capabilities enemy. Sometimes when you do not have an aerial asset with even a modest A2A capability they only thing you can do is to look up and watch as drug smugglers or terrorist do their nefarious things – buying an aircraft on the commercial market is not really a problem.

When it comes to the PGM capability I mentioned it is necessary because with todays proliferation of weapons even terror groups can have MANPADS or DShK (other 12, 7 mm / cal. .05 heavy MGs) or even light cannons. When you have only free fall bombs and unguided rockets in order to have a chance of hitting anything you have to go in low and expose yourself to such threats. With PGMs you can drop a bomb or fire a missile from considerable distance with a very high hit probability (though of course not 100%) and even if theoretically in range of MANPADS or heavy MGs / light cannons the launching aircraft will be only a small speck in the distant sky very hard to see and thus hard to hit. PGMs can also considerably reduce collateral damage (though not eliminate it 100%) and have other advantages.

Are there costs involved – sure they are, but every capability must cost. Would they have to be integrated with the aircraft – true but that goes for every system. Yet this is not Star Wars technology so expensive only the Rothschild could pay for it. The Chinese have shown the ability to develop & deliver electronics & weapons at a bargain basement prices when compared to others.

And yes this is not the right stuff if you intend to wage high intensity war against a high tech enemy but would be IMHO just the right thing for many third world AFs which face limited threats.

So much for now – I am going on vacation.
Click to expand...


One of the main reasons that the J-7/Mig-21 is so loved is due to is simple maintenance and low operating costs. Additionally there are many nations that have utilized the J-7/Mig-21 are having a difficult time letting go due to their low expense. There is a logistics chain and maintenance facilities, along with trained maintenance personnel, that will require a transition to a new aircraft type.

Even though the FTC-2000 has been improved with a large engine, more hard points and a lager radar; it would be hard pressed to hold its own against fourth and fifth generation aircraft. Especially in the BVR arena. It is a good dog-fighter, but its Achilles heel is its limited range and fuel capacity. In Sir Lanka the Kfir's it utilized had a longer range and heavier ordinance load than the J-7s.

However this aircraft is not without merit. The in-flight refueling probe can provide in-flight refueling training to Air Force pilots, its ease of maintenance and low operating cost can ensure pilots a larger number of flight hours. It can be used as a trainer and as an aggressor aircraft to keep other elite squadrons up-to-date in dog-fighting air to air combat. In a pinch it can be thrown into the fight, but it is not intended to be the backbone of your air fleet.

Have a nice holiday!



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
 
Last edited:
P

POKL

New Member
You guys just force me to replay even though I do want to get off this subject. Seems we are talking past each other.

As I have already stated and will state this again – an FTC 2000 / JL 9 is not suited for high intensity / high teach war.

Small AFs are likely to face airspace violators, smugglers, terrorist and rebels – in short the sort of threat that hardly operates fourth / fifth gen fighters with BVR capabilities. Hence BVR capabilities are not needed and many other capabilities that come with fourth / fifth gen multi role fighters are also redundant.

Because of this many small AFs need an affordable aircraft capable of enforcing sovereignty of their airspace plus hit some ground targets should the need arise.

The crux of the point I am trying to make – for intercepting air space violators and similar air policing missions the FTC 2000 / JL 9 would be just fine.

In contrast an expensive aircraft with BVR capabilities would be a wast of money (smugglers and terrorists do not fly Typhoons) and a small country most likely does not have the said money in the first place.

Oh – and by going on vacation I meant to take a leave from the forum for some time but thx for your wishes. May you also have a pleasant time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top