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

POKL said:

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.

?

Click to expand...

If you are looking for a fighter, the JF 17 is a better choice.

Between say, 24 FTC 2000 or 12 JF 17, I would pick the latter.

delft said:

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 ).

Click to expand...

I think what Deino refers to (although I never heard the term "bleed-in intake) is the option of having additional air feed into the engine in a high power, low speed condition. So far I only really knew of that feature in the Tornado. On the outside structure just aft of the intake, there's two small "cowlings" (don't know a proper term). They are springloaded to the closed position. Under a high power setting (much air demanded), but in slow speed (e.g. take off) the intake area is too small to allow enough air to come in. As such, there's a low pressure area in front of the compressor, sucking those doors open, allowing for more air to come in. At higher speeds, when ram air pressure actually supplies enough air, the low preassure area dissipates and the cowlings close.
Seems to be similar here on the J-7.

Yes, I was writing my reply a bit in a hurry yesterday and did not know the correct term, Sorry for any confusion.

Deino


PS: By the way any one with idea in regard to my J-7E and/or J-7L question ???

Bangladesh J-7 with U.S. Air Force C-130.

Scratch said:

I think what Deino refers to (although I never heard the term "bleed-in intake) is the option of having additional air feed into the engine in a high power, low speed condition. So far I only really knew of that feature in the Tornado. On the outside structure just aft of the intake, there's two small "cowlings" (don't know a proper term). They are springloaded to the closed position. Under a high power setting (much air demanded), but in slow speed (e.g. take off) the intake area is too small to allow enough air to come in. As such, there's a low pressure area in front of the compressor, sucking those doors open, allowing for more air to come in. At higher speeds, when ram air pressure actually supplies enough air, the low preassure area dissipates and the cowlings close.
Seems to be similar here on the J-7.

Click to expand...

I just remembered the name for this device: its a blow in door.

Granted that the JL-9 is not a new aircraft and cannot structurally handle 11g , has more aluminium than composites, has a turbo jet and a turbo fan, has hydraulic flight controls and not fly by wire, etc….

Is it really that bad of an aircraft? At 8.5 million US (personally I think more around 11 or 12 million US) it’s not a bad deal. Imagine if you will as was suggested above a single seat version with extra room for internal fuel. With nine hard points possible (wing tips for short range AA missiles, two under wing, and three on the fuselage, that being one on the center line and to on the fuselage adjacent to the wing root). The small hardpoints near the wing could carry a targeting pod for PGM for a light strike mission, or in the CAP situation; three drop tanks, two BVR missiles and two WVR missiles.

It is a great cheap little aircraft. Not intended to be the backbone of your air force, but an excellent secondary aircraft the supplement the 35 million to 65 million dollar ones and provide CAP or just defend the borders.

Just for the sake of conversation (you know that what I want for all my fellow SDF members) if a single seat FTC-2000G (the modified wing version) were to appear with a modestly sized AESA of PESA radar system (adds two the three million to each aircraft) and data link to say a AWAC or J-11. How would you feel about this aircraft now?

In a mixed ratio of accompanying superior aircraft these small fighters could then mix in dogfights with the remaining aircraft, execute shoot and run missions, or peruse.

Any thoughts?


Back to bottling my Grenache

Miragedriver said:

Is it really that bad of an aircraft? At 8.5 million US (personally I think more around 11 or 12 million US) it’s not a bad deal.

Click to expand...

Well ....

- As a fighter, it is somewhat better then Mig-21 bis, but not that much. If your opponent flies light utility or passenger aircraft it would suffice, but so would Mig-21 bis . It could also patrol in peacetime, but so could Mig-21. Reason I'm mentioning Fishbed is because most of potential customers do operate Mig-21/J-7 and they would be reluctant to replace them with aircraft that has only marginally better qualities.

- As a ground attack aircraft, it could serve in that purpose. But again, your opponent must not be too sophisticated . But if you are fighting ISIS-like rebels, and you don't have much funds, dedicated ground-strike aircraft like Su-25 ,A-5, Mig-27 or attack helicopters could be a better option.

- As a trainer : it would be a fine trainer, but you would need something to train for . Countries looking at JL-9 usually could not afford more expensive aircraft (like J-10, Su-30 etc ) to justify purchase of JL-9 as a trainer

thunderchief said:

Well ....

- As a fighter, it is somewhat better then Mig-21 bis, but not that much. If your opponent flies light utility or passenger aircraft it would suffice, but so would Mig-21 bis . It could also patrol in peacetime, but so could Mig-21. Reason I'm mentioning Fishbed is because most of potential customers do operate Mig-21/J-7 and they would be reluctant to replace them with aircraft that has only marginally better qualities.

- As a ground attack aircraft, it could serve in that purpose. But again, your opponent must not be too sophisticated . But if you are fighting ISIS-like rebels, and you don't have much funds, dedicated ground-strike aircraft like Su-25 ,A-5, Mig-27 or attack helicopters could be a better option.

- As a trainer : it would be a fine trainer, but you would need something to train for . Countries looking at JL-9 usually could not afford more expensive aircraft (like J-10, Su-30 etc ) to justify purchase of JL-9 as a trainer

Click to expand...

Draft copy of the exercise Cope India report says:

While the superb performances of IAF Sukhoi-30s were somewhat anticipated, the performance of MiG-21Bison came as a major “unpleasant surprise” to the USAF officials. It also validates the claim of the Russian officials that they are capable of successfully converting “second generation” late-model MiG-21bis fighters to “fourth generation combat platforms”. Inherently the significant positive attributes enjoyed by MiG-21s were their dog fighting ability in WVR (Within Visual Range) combat. Even the earlier models had a low corner velocity of 556 kilometers per hour and at Mach 0.5 had an instantaneous turn rate of 11.1 degrees per second. The MiG-21Bison with more powerful R-25 engines not only considerably bettered this performance but it may also be credited with “jackrabbit” acceleration, a very critical attribute in WVR combat.

Click to expand...

Something in-line to:

Among many fourth generations attributes added to the IAF MiG-21Bison design, the incorporation of HMS (Helmet Mounted Sight) and high-off-boresight R-73RDM2 NBVR/WVR (Near Beyond Visual Range/Within Visual Range) AAMs (Air-to-Air Missiles) have turned it into a “Great Equalizer” in the WVR combat scenario. Conceptually a small number of MiG-21Bisons maintaining “radar silence” can be guided towards their aerial target by a couple of Sukhoi-30s by secure data links in accordance with MFFC (Mixed Fighter Force Concept). Upon entering into an WVR combat envelope the MiG-21Bisons armed with HMS and deadly NBVR/WVR missiles had the capability of destroying even fifth-generation fighters alike F/A-22 Raptor as assessed by high-profile Fighter Analyst Ben Lambeth of RAND Corporation. According to Lambeth “in visual combat everybody dies at the same rate.” F/A-22 also has to slow down if forced into a WVR combat scenario and loses the advantage of its super-cruise attributes. The situation further complicates if the IAF Sukhoi-30s have acquired the capability of providing target illumination for RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder) BVR missiles being launched from IAF MiG-21Bisons at extended ranges.

Click to expand...

An FTC-200G is more maneuverable than a heavy/delta winged MiG-21 Bison


Back to bottling my Grenache

thunderchief said:

Well ....

- As a fighter, it is somewhat better then Mig-21 bis, but not that much. If your opponent flies light utility or passenger aircraft it would suffice, but so would Mig-21 bis . It could also patrol in peacetime, but so could Mig-21. Reason I'm mentioning Fishbed is because most of potential customers do operate Mig-21/J-7 and they would be reluctant to replace them with aircraft that has only marginally better qualities.

- As a ground attack aircraft, it could serve in that purpose. But again, your opponent must not be too sophisticated . But if you are fighting ISIS-like rebels, and you don't have much funds, dedicated ground-strike aircraft like Su-25 ,A-5, Mig-27 or attack helicopters could be a better option.

- As a trainer : it would be a fine trainer, but you would need something to train for . Countries looking at JL-9 usually could not afford more expensive aircraft (like J-10, Su-30 etc ) to justify purchase of JL-9 as a trainer

Click to expand...

I admit I don't really know too much in this issue, however, I do believe that one cannot no longer buy Mig-21 bis new, this aircraft was no longer in production, so those operators that are operating this type of aircraft should already have their aircraft reaching its maximum timeframe soon. So they might be looking around for an aircraft to replace the Migs. This might be where the JL-9 come in.

It is really not that expensive as a good fighter/ trainer and better than the Mig-21 Bis in many area. So it is a viable option.

Comparing Mig-21 Bison and JL-9 there are similarities, but there are also few differences :
- Bison is a upgrade program of existing aircraft, not a newly built aircraft like JL-9 .
- Bison is somewhat cheaper then JL-9
- Bison has somewhat better avionics and air-to-air weaponry then JL-9
- JL-9 is more maneuverable, but Bison is faster and accelerates faster at full afterburner.
- JL-9 could be used as a trainer, and Bison of couse could not .

Despite all of this, although many countries poses Mig-21 bis, only India upgrades some of them to Bison standard (not all of them) . Operators of Mig-21 simply either don't have money, or they don't want to spend money on basically obsolete airframe . It is worth noting that to be really effective Bison needs other aircraft or ground based radars to vector them to target . Indians used this tactics in Cope India 2004, but other potential operators of Bison simply cannot afford to buy Su-30 or AWACS