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

thunderchief said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes the Mig-21 Bison or a FTC-2000G (modified as a fighter) would do very well as mentioned previously with the support of AWAC or SU-30s (acting as AWAC) The WS-14 engine in the FTC-2000/JL-9 is actually more powerful , or of equal thrust, as that on the MiG-21 Bison.

The aircraft has its merits and in a dog fight could be a serious threat to other aircraft, especially if fighting in the Jl-9s flight envelope. Additionally, in theory a FTC-2000G with a PESA or ASEA radar could be an inexpensive launch platform when supported by AWAC. The aircraft is small and difficult to detect and can handle itself in close combat.

When needed these small aircraft can be fitted with IRST pod and or targeting pod for PGM.

With all the money you save purchasing these less expensive aircraft you can spend monies on AWAC and some 4++ generation aircraft for your air force.

Sorry to disturb Your discussion, but first of all how do You know which one is better, is more manoueverable and so on.

Even more, the JL-9 is developed as a trainer ... not a fighter and I'm this can be "seen" in its structure, even more there is no WS-14, not even a WP-14 ... as far as Inknow it is powered by a standard WP-13F(C) ! Also regarding the weapons and avionics ... there is much too much "theoretically" included: AESA ... forget it, radar-guided AAMs ... the same !

Therefore I don't know how You make up this tiny little bird into a super-duper-fighter ???

Deino said:

Sorry to disturb Your discussion, but first of all how do You know which one is better, is more manoueverable and so on.

Even more, the JL-9 is developed as a trainer ... not a fighter and I'm this can be "seen" in its structure, even more there is no WS-14, not even a WP-14 ... as far as Inknow it is powered by a standard WP-13F(C) ! Also regarding the weapons and avionics ... there is much too much "theoretically" included: AESA ... forget it, radar-guided AAMs ... the same !

Therefore I don't know how You make up this tiny little bird into a super-duper-fighter ???

Click to expand...

Come on. Just having a little hypothetical fun Dino. That’s what this forum is about.

Besides it is interesting to note that even the less maneuverable Bison is still able cause a stir at Cope India (with help from airborne control). So for the sake of good hearted open conversation let us pose the question: since the FTC-2000g is a more maneuverable descendant of the J-7 and that being a descendant of the Mig-21. One could/might assume that the inherent fighter qualities of the Mig-21….J-7 were passed down to the FTC-2000G/JL-9G.

With that said why not consider a single seat version with additional space for some extra fuel and avionics. As stated many time, this is not saying that this aircraft will be shooting 4+++ or 5th generation aircraft out of the sky. However it might catch some 3rd or non-upgraded 4th generation aircraft by surprise.

It’s just something to think about and to discuss…..


Have a seat and glass of Grenache and we'll talk about it.

Agreed !

Being originally designed for carrier approach, the g variant is much more geared toward performance at low speeds. with mach1,2 declared top speed as per avic poster, a loaded g variant with four missiles may not really be able to go over mach 1.

thunderchief said:

@Miragedriver ,

you actually want to create another JF-17 , only with even less powerful engine then RD-93 and on top of it you want modern avionics . Even if you manage to fit AESA radar and IRST, and find enough power for them, how much would such aircraft cost ? You are basically in same predicament as JF-17, customers with money want modern aircraft with modern airframe and engine , those without money are not willing to pay $ 10+ million for an aircraft .

Click to expand...

Well I think you would be surprised on how many 3rd world nations (mostly in Africa) would be willing to pay 10 or 12 million US in lieu of 20 to 25 million US (JF-17) for a fighter aircraft. Especially when they already have MiG-21s of J-7s and your neighbor does not have anything better.

It fills the ranks and help in a war of attrition.

Granted that it goes without saying that the JF-17 is a much more capable aircraft

Miragedriver said:

Well I think you would be surprised on how many 3rd world nations (mostly in Africa) would be willing to pay 10 or 12 million US in lieu of 20 to 25 million US (JF-17) for a fighter aircraft. Especially when they already have MiG-21s of J-7s and your neighbor does not have anything better.

It fills the ranks and help in a war of attrition.

Granted that it goes without saying that the JF-17 is a much more capable aircraft

Click to expand...

Well, I used to think like that, but unfortunately looks like it is not the case . Considering the lack of interest for Bison 10 years ago, or for JL-9 and JF-17 today (and looks like Kfir Block 60 deal for Argentina also failed ) , I would say that new cheap second-rate multirole fighter is actually not much in demand . Even medium-sized and medium priced fighters like Mig-29SMT didn't score much of the sales lately . Astonishingly, but relatively poor countries seem to prefer heavy fighters like Su-30 .

thunderchief said:

Well, I used to think like that, but unfortunately looks like it is not the case . Considering the lack of interest for Bison 10 years ago, or for JL-9 and JF-17 today (and looks like Kfir Block 60 deal for Argentina also failed ) , I would say that new cheap second-rate multirole fighter is actually not much in demand . Even medium-sized and medium priced fighters like Mig-29SMT didn't score much of the sales lately . Astonishingly, but relatively poor countries seem to prefer heavy fighters like Su-30 .

Click to expand...

Just to get off topic a second, Why do you think the SU-27/30 is having so much success? It is a larger aircraft which demands a high level of maintenance and associated cost. Could it be the reliability, ability to obtain replacement parts, more robust, easier maintenance, acquisition cost (strange since use MiG-29s are cheaper to acquire), or a combination of the above and/or some others.

I know that India has had problems with their Mig-29 and Malaysia was very dissatisfied with the MiGs performance and maintenance. However, nations like Peru and Poland enjoy their MiGs.

Thanks


Back bottling my Grenache

Miragedriver said:

Just to get off topic a second, Why do you think the SU-27/30 is having so much success? It is a larger aircraft which demands a high level of maintenance and associated cost. Could it be the reliability, ability to obtain replacement parts, more robust, easier maintenance, acquisition cost (strange since use MiG-29s are cheaper to acquire), or a combination of the above and/or some others.

I know that India has had problems with their Mig-29 and Malaysia was very dissatisfied with the MiGs performance and maintenance. However, nations like Peru and Poland enjoy their MiGs.

Thanks
Back bottling my Grenache

Click to expand...

I think it's a "Mercedes effect" , same reason why people in poor countries spend life savings on extravagant cars to impress their neighbors . Until recently Su-30 was actually best fighter in the market (F-22 was not available, Typhoon had mechanically steered radar and Rafale PESA, F-15 & F-16 are inferior by USAF own admission ...) . Also, price is very reasonable and maintenance cost are not that bad ( Russians have completely different maintenance philosophy, with operating costs fluctuating wildly depending on required flight hours per year, and level of readiness) .At the same time, having Su-30 in air force would create image of strength and power , both to impress local population and neighbors (potential rivals) . We must remember that first and foremost role of weapon system is not to participate in actual war, but to prevent and deter armed conflict .

On the other hand, when you buy something like JL-9 , JF-17 , Mig-21 Bison and even Mig-29 SMT you are basically admitting that you have "budget airforce" . Of course, those planes could be good enough for your military needs, but politically they are bland . For untrained eye Mig-21 is a Mig-21, and Mig-29 is a plane that lost badly in all wars it was . And yet, to operate them properly you still need to spend money on maintenance, training, ordnance etc ... Therefore, as we could see, low budget fighters are not generating much of the sales .