Miragedriver
Brigadier
On the contrary my friend. We agree. This aircraft has many virtues and one of them is an economical air patrol for airspace violations. Plus the others I listed above. Especially for current J-7/MiG-21 operators.
The Q-5, J-7, J-8 and older PLAAF aircraft
- Thread starter adeptitus
- Start date
On the contrary my friend. We agree. This aircraft has many virtues and one of them is an economical air patrol for airspace violations. Plus the others I listed above. Especially for current J-7/MiG-21 operators.
Miragedriver
Brigadier
OK – so after disagreeing on what to agree we can now agree to agree
Have a nice day – I am really taking a leave now!
I think we were in agreement on the aircrafts abilities. We were just having some overlapping conversations on the subject. Lost in translation LOL
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
thunderchief
Senior Member
Even if you want basic air policing fighter, you need something that could intercept passenger planes flying at 10 000m, at speeds in excess of 800-900 km/h . IMHO, this is the role where JL-9 could not replace Mig-21/J-7 and I explained why before .
As for stopping smugglers, even subsonic aircraft are good enough. for example, Peru successfully used Su-25 & A-37 against drug cartels.
This is becoming a silly addiction to me – and GAIEC should hire me for their marketing / PR department.
The JL 9 has a max speed of 1,5 Mach, can reach a ceiling of 16 000 m and last but not least it has an afterburning engine to give it a ‘kick’ – yet if it would be able or not able to intercept an airliner depends on a lot of factors such as for example: how far out the aircraft to be intercepted is or is the intercepted aircraft meant to be escorted and if so for how long?
And yes for intercepting for example a Cessna a subsonic aircraft would also do but granted speed may be needed if it has to be intercepted before it gets out of reach by entering the airspace of another country or if it is flown by terrorists and has to be shot down before it reaches a certain place for example a population centre – again many factors to be considered.
And of course the airspace is not ‘inhabited’ only be either slow & low light planes or fast & high airliners but again one could write a book about what can be encountered in the sky above and why the ability to make a supersonic ‘dash’ might be an advantage or contrary why a subsonic aircraft would be enough – volumes could be written with arguments for and against.
Let me also add that the JL 9 would not replace the MiG 21 / J 7 if for no other reason than because these two (or really one) aircraft were ‘real’ fighters for their time (which has long passed since) and the JL 9 / FTC 2000 is not meant to be such a thing.
So I will stick by mine assessment – the JL 9 could be a low cost / affordable solution for AFs with limited needs and limited potential threats to face. Of course one might point out, that there are many aircraft on the market which fit into the category of combat capable jet with no frills (these are in fact frequently armed trainers) and that is perhaps the main reason why the FTC 2000 found no export orders so far.
However what really interests me is why at all the JL 9 was adopted by the Chinese for their service and especially the JL 9G variant for carrier deck training is puzzling me. One reason I see is perhaps that with all the work & cost invested into the project and no export orders it had to be used domestically so that all the investment would not go down the drain.
The JL 9 has a max speed of 1,5 Mach, can reach a ceiling of 16 000 m and last but not least it has an afterburning engine to give it a ‘kick’ – yet if it would be able or not able to intercept an airliner depends on a lot of factors such as for example: how far out the aircraft to be intercepted is or is the intercepted aircraft meant to be escorted and if so for how long?
And yes for intercepting for example a Cessna a subsonic aircraft would also do but granted speed may be needed if it has to be intercepted before it gets out of reach by entering the airspace of another country or if it is flown by terrorists and has to be shot down before it reaches a certain place for example a population centre – again many factors to be considered.
And of course the airspace is not ‘inhabited’ only be either slow & low light planes or fast & high airliners but again one could write a book about what can be encountered in the sky above and why the ability to make a supersonic ‘dash’ might be an advantage or contrary why a subsonic aircraft would be enough – volumes could be written with arguments for and against.
Let me also add that the JL 9 would not replace the MiG 21 / J 7 if for no other reason than because these two (or really one) aircraft were ‘real’ fighters for their time (which has long passed since) and the JL 9 / FTC 2000 is not meant to be such a thing.
So I will stick by mine assessment – the JL 9 could be a low cost / affordable solution for AFs with limited needs and limited potential threats to face. Of course one might point out, that there are many aircraft on the market which fit into the category of combat capable jet with no frills (these are in fact frequently armed trainers) and that is perhaps the main reason why the FTC 2000 found no export orders so far.
However what really interests me is why at all the JL 9 was adopted by the Chinese for their service and especially the JL 9G variant for carrier deck training is puzzling me. One reason I see is perhaps that with all the work & cost invested into the project and no export orders it had to be used domestically so that all the investment would not go down the drain.
I just stumbled across this "update" from Huitong regarding the upgraded J-7L from J-7E to a J-7G-equivalent/-similar status:
later in the J-7G section:
But that can't be !
The JL-7 was the original J-7C's radar and even if an improved version like used in the J-7D is IMO too large to be used in the G or now L ??
Even more I thought the G uses the KLJ-6E also known as SY-80 ! So why is the SY-80 now the JL-7 ????
Can anyone help me out ?
Deino
later in the J-7G section:
But that can't be !
The JL-7 was the original J-7C's radar and even if an improved version like used in the J-7D is IMO too large to be used in the G or now L ??Even more I thought the G uses the KLJ-6E also known as SY-80 ! So why is the SY-80 now the JL-7 ????
Can anyone help me out ?
Deino
Again me with another Deino-style question:
While comparing J-7E, J-7EH, J-7G and also "said to be" J-7L I noticed that they differ most of all in their blade antenna behind the canopy: the EH used a long thin B-like antenna, the J-7E uses a wider not as tall one whereas the J-7G has an antenna with a small "thing" on top ... truly new is an antenna (image bottom left) similar to the CAC J-10A/AS ... so even if most images labeled J-7L show the wider antenna ... it seems as if the only true L is the one in the bottom left corner.
As such if indeed only this new antenna is on a J-7L then only the 14. Division and the 86. Brigade are flying this version.
Any ideas ???
Deino
While comparing J-7E, J-7EH, J-7G and also "said to be" J-7L I noticed that they differ most of all in their blade antenna behind the canopy: the EH used a long thin B-like antenna, the J-7E uses a wider not as tall one whereas the J-7G has an antenna with a small "thing" on top ... truly new is an antenna (image bottom left) similar to the CAC J-10A/AS ... so even if most images labeled J-7L show the wider antenna ... it seems as if the only true L is the one in the bottom left corner.
As such if indeed only this new antenna is on a J-7L then only the 14. Division and the 86. Brigade are flying this version.
Any ideas ???
Deino
Again me with another Deino-style question:
While comparing J-7E, J-7EH, J-7G and also "said to be" J-7L I noticed that they differ most of all in their blade antenna behind the canopy: the EH used a long thin B-like antenna, the J-7E uses a wider not as tall one whereas the J-7G has an antenna with a small "thing" on top ... truly new is an antenna (image bottom left) similar to the CAC J-10A/AS ... so even if most images labeled J-7L show the wider antenna ... it seems as if the only true L is the one in the bottom left corner.
As such if indeed only this new antenna is on a J-7L then only the 14. Division and the 86. Brigade are flying this version.
Any ideas ???
Deino
View attachment 11400
Not to digress, what is the small rectangular opening at the wing root for? It is closed in some pictures and open in others.
I thought bleed air is air bled from the engine compressor for any purpose, even for the stability of the compressor during some transients or power settings ( but that perhaps only in antique engines ).